人民论坛

小溪细水汇集而成形成汹涌的大海洋


留下评论

(中英文版)您想知道为什么吗? Ever wonder why?

您想知道为什么吗?

作者:张素兰

想知道为什么林福寿医生、何标、李思东国会议员、赛查哈利、傅树介医生(于1963年后1976年分别被捕)和谢太宝国会议员全部在内部安全法令下不经审讯被监禁超过17年吗?

想知道为什么谢太宝在中国声名狼藉的哪版权法令下失去了32年的自由吗?

想知道为什么不经审讯无限期监禁在世界其他国家,除美国管辖下的关塔纳摩监狱外(注:在古巴国土上),只在新加坡实施吗?

我知道很多人都在思考着这个问题。请看如下的这张列表:

政治犯被长期监禁和失去自由与被捕的原因有关吗?据我所知的答案是:

“他们没有触犯任何非法的活动”。

行动党政府指控林福寿医生和他的朋友们威胁我们国家的安全。行动党政府从来就没有提出任何任何文件来支持自己对政治犯的指控;或者,在他们的住所、诊所和办公室找到任何的武器。当行动党逮捕他们时,大肆制造了虚假新闻说他们对国家产生威胁。行动党通过沾污政治犯的目的,是在老百姓当中广泛制造白色恐怖与恐吓。

当林福寿医生还在被监禁期间,他从监狱里发表了什么驳斥了政府无数次的那些邪恶的、残忍的、不负责任的及未经证实的指控。林福寿医生回顾了他被关押在内部安全局丝丝街总部时,内部安全局官员告诉他的事情。他说:

“在1972年正月13日,我内转移到政治部罗敏申总部。在哪儿与我的弟弟(注:林福坤)一起被监禁了40天。两名行动党的政治犯部高级官员暗示我,假设我要获得释放,我必须签署一份公开的悔过声明……。

他们提出了要求我做的两件事是:

  1. 我们必须做一份交代我过去的政治活动的口述声明,亦即一份“安全声明”。那只是给政治部做记录用的,不会公开。

  2. 我必须发表一份包括以下两点的公开声明:

    1. 我准备放弃从事政治活动,未来也将投身行医。

    2. 我必须表达带议会民主制度的支持……。

我完全拒绝了发表任何公开声明作为我获得释放的条件。这是我的原则立场。……(见《华惹时代风云》:《马来亚大学社会主义俱乐部与战后的马来亚及新加坡》第149-154页。编辑:傅树介、陈仁贵和许佳友)。”

就因此导致的结果是,林福寿又继续被关押了11年。

鉴于林福寿医生拒绝了内部安全局的不合理要求,因此他就被监禁了20年!李光耀及其部长们有什么权利怎么做?这么明确地说明了,行动党政府监禁政治犯是与国家安全没有任何关系,而是行动党政府未来保住自己的统治权利。凭什么林福寿医生必须放弃自己的政治活动权利?

正如您看到的这张附表。李光耀是在1923年出世的,林福寿医生的年龄还要年轻8岁。李光耀也比那些在1961年与林福寿医生一起反对李光耀的朋友的年纪还要大。李光耀与第一届内阁部长的同僚,如杜进才、吴庆瑞、S拉惹勒南海EW巴克年纪相比,同时属于最年轻的,但是这些人的年纪仍然是比林福寿医生及其朋友还要大。

1954年行动党成立时,林福寿医生和傅树介医生是马来亚大学医学系学生。根据林福寿医生和傅树介医生出版的著作揭露,当时他们是一名医学系学生,是协助李光耀草拟人民行动党的党章的人。

这是似乎是让人考着年轻时期的林福寿医生和他的朋友的能力。李光耀和他的同僚经过仔细的盘算自己面对的风险后,决定把他们全部灌进监牢直到他们度过建国初期的安全期,大约是4050 年。到了那个时候,来感受医生和他的朋友们获得释放后,他们的政治事业期也已经过了。那个时期,社会主义阵线和新加坡人民当夜不复存在了。新加坡的这个政治气氛也被白色恐怖所笼罩着了。林福寿医生和他的评语吗也失去的年轻人应有的冲劲了。

在内部安全法令下进行的冷藏行动和接下来几次大规模的逮捕行动是极其残酷性和具有恐吓性的行动。它确保了行动党在新加坡没有具有强大实力的反对党情况下能够长期性维持着其统治政权。李光耀及其部长们为一己私利下,完全违背了新加坡人及新加坡的国家利益。

当林福寿医生被问到,他被长期的监禁是不是李光耀为了防止他参与未来的选国会举时,他的回答如下:

“我们以独立候选人身份竞选,是无法当选的。必须要有一群人支持。当我被释放时。社阵已经被彻底摧毁了,只剩个空壳。我在1972年获释时,内部安全局局长张栾民对我说:“林医生,我不是警告您或者威胁您,我只是提醒您。某人,您知道是谁,给 我一道持久有效的命令(STANDING  ORDER),如果您在获释后表现桀骜不驯,我们将再把您直接灌进监牢,不必请示内阁。”。

李光耀和他的行动党可以继续掌权到今天,就是因为他们可以合法地把林福寿医生及其朋友监禁在牢狱里超过17年和在冷藏行动后持续不断地每年进行大规模的逮捕行动.

我们必须对自己提出这样一个问题:

为什么我们允许行动党政府不经审讯的情况下林福寿医生及其朋友们?

我们是否需要让行动党每当它们面对政治威胁时就利用和滥用内部安全法令来对付我们?

 

 

Ever wonder why?

by Teo Soh Lung

Ever wonder why Dr Lim Hock Siew, Ho Piao, MP Lee Tee Tong, Said Zahari, Dr Poh Soo Kai (who was arrested twice, in 1963 and 1976) and MP Chia Thye Poh were all imprisoned without trial under the ISA for more than 17 years?

Ever wonder why Chia Thye Poh holds the notorious world record of losing his freedom for 32 years?

Ever wonder why indefinite imprisonment without trial is practised in Singapore and not in any other first world country except Guantanamo (by the USA)?

I know many have pondered over these questions. Take a look at the table.

What did the detainees do to warrant their long incarceration and loss of freedom? From what I know,

“NOTHING ILLEGAL”.

The PAP government alleged that Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends were threats to our national security. No documents were ever produced to substantiate such claims or weapons found on any of them or in their homes, clinics or office. Fake news about the danger they posed to society and widely publicised by the government at the time of their arrests and after tarnished their good names and instilled widespread fear among the populace.

While still in prison, Dr Lim Hock Siew rebutted the wicked, cruel, irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims of the government many times. In his public statement issued in the 9th year of his unjust imprisonment, Dr Lim Hock Siew recalled what ISD officers told him at the headquarters of the Special Branch in Robinson Road. He said:

“On 13 January 1972, I was taken to the headquarters of the special branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon. Two high-ranking special branch agents of the PAP regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released…

They demanded from me two things. They are as follows:

(1) That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, ‘A security statement’. This was meant for the special branch records only and not meant for publication.

(2) That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points:

(a) That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter.
(b) That I must express support for the parliamentary democratic system.” …

I completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance…” [See The Fajar Generation, The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore ed by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee & Koh Kay Yew pp149-154].

As a consequence, Dr Lim Hock Siew was imprisoned for another 11 long years.

Was it right for Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers to imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew for 20 years just because he refused to accede to their unjust demands, which clearly had nothing to do with national security but the preservation of their power? Why should Dr Lim give up politics?

As can be seen from the Table, Lee Kuan Yew was 8 years older than Dr Lim Hock Siew. Lee who was born in 1923, was much older than Dr Lim and his friends who openly opposed the PAP in 1961. Lee Kuan Yew was the youngest among his colleagues – Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam and EW Barker who formed the first cabinet. They were all thus older than Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends.

When the PAP was formed in the 1950s, Dr Lim and Dr Poh were medical students. The writings and speeches of Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai reveal that as medical students, they assisted Lee Kuan Yew in drafting the PAP constitution.

It is likely that reckoning the youth and ability of Dr Lim and his friends, Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues meticulously calculated their risk and decided to imprison all of them till well past their prime i.e. till their late 40s and 50s. By the time Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends were released from prison, their political careers were over. Barisan Sosialis and Partai Rakyat were no longer active. The political climate was shrouded in fear. They themselves have lost the energy of youth.

Operation Coldstore and subsequent mass arrests under the ISA were cruel and cowardly acts that ensured longevity of the PAP in power and absence of any meaningful opposition for Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers acted in their own selfish interest and against the interest of Singaporeans and Singapore.

When Dr Lim Hock Siew was asked if his long imprisonment was intended to prevent him from standing in future elections, his response was this:

“We cannot win the election as an independent candidate. You must have a group of people supporting you. The Barisan Sosialis was completely dismantled by the time I was released. It was only a shell without substance. At the time of my release in 1982, the Assistant Director of ISD, Tjong Yik Min said: “Dr Lim I am not warning or threatening you. I am only informing you. I have a standing order from you know who. If you show defiance after release, we will put you in prison again without reference to the cabinet.”

Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP were able to remain in power till today because they were able to legally imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends for more than 17 years and continue with mass arrests every year following Operation Coldstore.

 The questions we have to ask ourselves is this:

“Why did we allow the PAP government to imprison Dr Lim Hock Siew and his friends for decades without trial?

Do we need the ISA to enable our government to abuse us each time they feel politically threatened?”

 

Advertisements


留下评论

(中英文版)民主党新任主席保尔.淡巴雅教授回答海峡时报答问——公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史极其重要的部分 Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

                       

公民反抗行为是组成民主党斗争历史

极其重要的部分

相关链接:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

大家应该已经阅读了海峡时报有关新加坡民主党中央委员会选举产生新的这样委员以及当未来的发展计划了。本月份较早时,卓先生(Mr Elgin Toh)发表了我的第一次访谈记录。他欣然同意通过电子邮件进行采访。可能由于受到报章版位的限制。他无法把访谈全文编入其专栏。为了让有兴趣了解访谈录的朋友知道访谈的详细内容,我仅此全文刊登如下。

一、关于您当选为民主党主席

1.您是否能够进一步提供有关民主党中央委员会改选的详情——你获选为党主席是通过党员?或者是党员干部选举产生的?当天中央委员会的改选有多少党员出席参与选举?是否有其他党员参与选举党中央主席的职位?您的任职期限是多久?

黄素枝博士和徐顺全博士是我竞选党主席候选人的共同提名人。经过党员干部投票选举产生的。我的任期是两年。

2.您是什么时候决定参与党主席职位的选举的?是在党员大会之前或者在党员大会期间?您为什么会决定参与党主席职位的选举?您在决定参与党主席职位选举前是否与任何亲密的朋友事前商量过——您的朋友对于您参与党主席选举的看法如何?您是否与徐顺全博士商量过?他给予您提供了哪些意见?

几个月前他们俩与我谈过有关担任民主党主席的可能性。他们认为,我已经具备了担任党主席的相关经验了,我如果接受这个职位将会获得全党同志的拥护。就我而言,这似乎是个人参与政治活动进程中的自然发展。当我认识到反馈意见的局限性时,它将被常规所忽视。正如我与一些在我们的医疗保健系统服务的杰出医生、护士和相关的卫生专业人员接触时,我总是对医疗保健融资体系如何感到沮丧。

正如我发表的声明里所说的那样,我期望争取更多的学者和专业人士能够参与我们的公民社会运动和政治活动。我们已经有看到多米尼.普都杰里助理教授(A/Prof Janil Puthucheary) Chia Shi Lu助理教授、默罕默德.法谢.易卜拉欣助理教授( A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim)和英丹.阿祖拉副教授( Asst Prof Intan Azura)都加入了行动党了。  我想,假设(在反对党里)能够找到相同的专业人士参与政治活动,那将是能够出现年一个平衡的局面。我的参与政治活动是获得家人的积极支持的。对我而言这是极其重要的。到目前为止,我们的同事、朋友的反馈是积极的,这包括了来自行动党过去的元老!当我获选为党主席的消息传开后,我鼓励了每一个人祝福我的人为创造一个美好的新加坡积极参与政治活动,。

3.不知道是否可以这么说,现阶段民主党主席职位的设立是仅次于民主党秘书长的第二号人物?(这个问题的答案我不需要做记录。假设我可以从您哪儿获得无意识感的回答,我准备怎么说,“海峡时报明白那么一回事……”)

民主党确实就是一个民主的政党。党在决定一些重大决策时,党的中委会成员是拥有同等的权利。这是我从那些过去的党内活动的“老党员”告诉我的。我数年来参与党的活动的经验也证实了这一点。

二、 关于您的工作计划

1 身为党主席,您是否有一到两个 优先考虑到的任务?您想要取得哪些成绩?

假设我们能够赢得要求马西泠友池集选区举行补选的法院诉讼,我首要的任务就是要为马西泠友池集选区的补选进行准备。同时也为下一届大选做好准备工作。特别是艰巨的家访工作。我们通过家访工作不断地进行检讨和调整我们提出的广泛建议计划(其中包括了住房、医疗系统、教育和经济发展等等的建议计划)。我们与培训和教育群体予以党的志愿工作者努力的培训。他们参与的范围包括了通讯组、基层组和社会服务组。

三、党的未来发展

1)民主党在来届大选的竞选策略是什么?民主党从2015年以及武吉巴督补选汲取了许多经验。这些建议是否可以为民主党在来届大选提供参考的价值?

第一次的选举活动对我而言教育是极其深刻的。它让我认识到,我们不仅仅是与行动党和他们的候选人进行竞争。而且还要面对来自主流媒体的强大攻势以及那些游击队似的的社交媒体网站。正如徐顺全所说的“网军”(IBS),它们在选举期间不时忽隐忽现。我们也必须面对执政党利用国家资源与我们进行竞争。我可以讲一个故事来举例说明。在选举过后,一名坐着轮椅的病人前来向祝贺我进行了一场精彩的竞选活动。我问他,你把票投给了谁?他的女儿插嘴说“傅海燕提供了轮椅给他”。我想她指出,这张轮椅是纳税人掏自己的钱买的。他坚持说,傅海燕在进行家访时,一大批的随从带着那些珍贵的轮椅来到我的组屋单位。

2)民主党曾经是新加坡一个最主要的反对党——在1991年大选过后。但是在1990年年尾。民主党经历了一场最艰苦的阶段。就选举胜利而言,那个时候,当时民主党在反对党阵营里并不是排名第二位的主要反对党。但是,我应该实事求是地说,从那个时候其它就开始往上山路攀爬了。依据IPS的调查报告,民主党在2015年仅次于第一大党工人党的反对党。从2015年开始,人们开始对工人党 开始产生疑问——由于它目前正在面对着没完没了的法律诉讼案件 ,对于它未来的前途产生疑虑。鉴于上述情况的发展,您认为,这是否意味着,在未来的日子里,或许在您的领导下,民主党将重新成为最主要的反对党?为此,民主党 将需要做哪些方面的工作?

在新加坡根本就不存在着任何有关第一大反对党和第二大反对党的问题。目前所有的反对党都在努力为实现一个更加民主的新加坡而工作。最重要的问题是:我们继续保持不懈地鞭策着行动党,要求他们更加地透明和负责任。特别是目前,总理的弟妹指责他滥用权力这方面。我们的地铁公司管理水平的恶劣性,给我们国家带来的经济挑战,看来行动党政府对如何管理地铁已经黔驴技穷了。

 3)对于民主党,人民都在谈论着许多它过去的问题,当时,我只集中在一个方面——“公民反抗行为”(Civil disobedience,下同)。我为什么要提出“公民反抗行为”这个问题?因为它具有的模糊性较低。民主党在前一段历史时期,曾经通过以突破法律框框限制的斗争形势来达到改革。目前这种情况已经较小了。我的问题是:

3.1)对于过去民主党采取的“公民的反抗行为”您有何看法?您同意?还是不同意?

我想,对民主党来说,过去的“公民反抗行为”是一个极其重要的组成部分,人民都忘记了在互联网时代到来前,行动党严控的主流媒体根本无法让人民获得任何的信息。人们必须感激民主党为此所展开的“公民反抗行为”。现在我们已经有了芳林公园的集会场所。它已经成为一个独立主流媒体传播信息的场所。让所有的社运活动者,包括前行动党国会议员、后来成为总统选举候选人(指陈清木医生)到场出席集会。(尽管他没有在集会上发言,但是仍然还是出席的集会。)即便是李光耀本人也把1954513日华校中学生反对服兵役的学生抗议行动视为是一种必要的“公民反抗行为”。任何事情的决定都必须依据当时的历史具体时间与地点,不可以一概而论。

3.2)今天民主党对于“公民反抗行为”的看法如何?她会为了更好的斗争而放弃这样的斗争策略吗?

是的。由于我们许多意见观点已经能够广泛的传播到群众中了。它比起个人的单独行为来的更加有效率了,所以并不需要在继续使用“公民反抗行为”这样的斗争形式了。

 3.3.)假设在您担任党主席期间公民反抗行为”的问题又再一次被提到议程上时,您是否会反对?

民主党长期以来就坚信,在我们国家的宪法约定下人民拥有言论自由权。正如我在当选为党主席时发表的第一篇声明所说的,“在我们的国家里,宪法是高于一切法律之上的。它确保我们的公民拥有言论与结社的自由权。这样的言论与结社的自由权力只要不危害及任何个别人士或者社群。只有人民能够进行充分的辩论和积极参与有关的影响到全面福祉的问题,这个国家才有可能进步。”

 四、关于您未来的长远计划

1)假设有一天,党员要求您竞选当地秘书长职位,您是否有意问鼎这个职位?

呵呵——这是完全不可能的事。徐顺全博士在推动党务工作方面至今仍然有目共睹的,在2015年的大选,新加坡人民终于改变了他们一直拽在心中自己的看法——真正的徐顺全是……一个为人正直、坚忍不拔、性格坚强的人!正如我在演讲里所说,另外,令我感到惊讶的改变的是,他在莱佛士坊售卖书籍时,人民都有意识绕道而行回避他。但是在民主党举行的群大大会开始前数小时,群众却排着冗长的队伍等待着让他在自己购买的书籍上签名。互联网和竞选运动最终给了徐顺全一个公平、客观和真正的评价。就我个人而言,我很乐意与他共事。

Tambyah: Civil disobedience an important part of SDP’s history

Paul Ananth Tambyah

Related link:

http://yoursdp.org/news/prof_tambyah_civil_disobedience_was_a_very_important_part_of_sdp_39_s_past/2017-10-31-6203

Many of you would have read the Straits Times articles on the new SDP Central Executive Committee and our plans for the future. Earlier this month, Mr Elgin Toh interviewed me for the first article. He very graciously agreed to an email interview. Probably because of space constraints, he was limited in what he could put in his column. For the benefit of those who want to read more, this is the full interview.

(1) Regarding your election as Chairman

Can you give us a bit more details on the election – Were you elected by members or cadre members? How many of these members were there at the election? Did anyone else stand for the post of Chairman? How long is your term as Chairman?

I was nominated by Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan, and was elected as Chairman unopposed by the cadre members of the party for a two-year term.

(b)When did you decide to stand as Chairman? Before the party conference or during? Why did you want to stand? Did you discuss it with anyone close to you before you went ahead – what did that person say? Did you discuss it with Dr Chee – what did he say?
Dr Wong Souk Yee and Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke with me a couple of months ago about the possibility of becoming SDP chair. They felt that I had the relevant experience and that I would be well accepted by the rank and file of the party.

For me, this seemed like the natural progression of my involvement in politics. As I have mentioned many times before, I got involved with politics when I realised the limitations of providing feedback that was going to be routinely ignored. As someone working in our healthcare system with excellent doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, I was constantly frustrated at how the healthcare financing system was structured.

As I said in my statement, I hoped that more academics and professionals will get more involved in civil society and politics. We already have A/Prof Janil Puthucheary, A/Prof Chia Shi Lu, A/Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, and Asst Prof Intan Azura.  I thought it would be good to add some balance to the picture.  My family has been supportive and that is very important to me. So far, the feedback from colleagues, friends and peers has been overwhelmingly positive, including a former PAP senior leader! I have encouraged everyone who has congratulated me to get involved in their own way in making a better Singapore.

(c) Is it fair to say that the Chairman in the current SDP set-up is de facto number two to Sec-Gen? (I don’t need an on-the-record answer to this question. If I can get an off-the-record sense from you, I’m prepared to say, “The Straits Times understands that…”)
The SDP really is a democratic party and the office bearers are more or less equal when it comes to major decisions. That is what I heard from the “old-timers” and it has been my experience of the last few years.

(2) Regarding your plans

(a) What are one or two priorities you have as Chairman? What do you hope to achieve?

The priorities would obviously be preparing for the Marsiling-Yew Tee by-election if we win the case and the next general election. Specifically, they would including ramping up our home visits, reviewing and revising if necessary our various policy proposals (housing, healthcare, education, the economy etc), working with our training and education groups to train volunteers especially those involved in the communications team, ground operations and community service arms.

(3) Regarding the party’s future

(a) How will SDP fight the next general election? Were there any lessons that the party took from 2015 and from Bukit Batok that would inform the way you approach the next campaign?
My first electoral experience was very educational. I learned that we were competing not just against the PAP and its candidates but also the full force of the mainstream media and guerrilla websites which appeared and disappeared just in time for the elections (as described elegantly by Dr Carol Soon from IPS). We also had to contend with the state resources deployed by the ruling party. A story I have told illustrates this well. After the elections, a patient came up to me on his motorized wheelchair and congratulated me on a well-run campaign. I asked him who he had voted for and his daughter chipped in that “Grace Fu had provided the wheelchair for him”. When I pointed out that it was his own taxpayer dollars which paid for the wheelchair, he insisted that she had showed up at his flat with a large entourage bearing the prized wheelchair.

 (b) There was a time when SDP was the most important opposition party in Singapore – after the 1991 GE. But by the late 1990s, the party went through a more difficult period, in terms of electoral success, and there were times when SDP wasn’t even the second most important opposition party. But I think it’s fair to say that the party has since climbed its way back up. The IPS surveys show that in 2015, it was the second most credible opposition party after WP. And since 2015, there have been questions about WP’s position – the party is now faced with lawsuits that throw its future under a cloud. In light of all the developments above, do you see SDP one day regaining its position as the most important opposition party in the future – perhaps even under your chairmanship? What does the party need to do to get there?

It is not relevant which opposition party is number 2 or number 3 in Singapore. All the current opposition parties are working for a more democratic Singapore. What is more important is that we continue to keep the PAP on their toes and demand more transparency and accountability from the government. This is particularly acute right now with the accusations of abuse of power raised against the Prime Minister by his siblings. There is also the poor management of our MRT together with the economic challenges facing our nation for which there seem to be few new ideas from the PAP.

(c) There are many things that have been said about the party’s past, but I want to just focus on one aspect – civil disobedience. The reason I am choosing civil disobedience is that there is relatively less fuzziness about it. SDP was at one time in its not-so-distant history prepared to break the law in order to advocate for change. There seem to be less of it today. My questions are:

 (i) What is your own view on what SDP did in the past in connection to civil disobedience? Do you agree with it? Disagree with it?

I think that civil disobedience was a very important part of our past. Many people forget that in the pre-internet era, there was no way for anyone to be heard apart from the tightly controlled mainstream media. Thanks to civil disobedience efforts by the SDP, we now have Hong Lim Park where all manner of activists including former PAP MPs turned Presidential candidates can turn up (maybe not speak but at least turn up) to make a point independent of the mainstream media. Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew felt the need to be involved in the May 13, 1954 student protests as an act of civil disobedience. There is a time and a place for everything.

(ii) What is the party’s position today on civil disobedience? Has it abandoned the strategy for good?

Right now, there is no pressing need for civil disobedience activities as many of our posts go viral and reach a far wider audience than a single individual protest

(iii) If civil disobedience comes up again for discussion during the time you are Chairman, are you likely to oppose it?

SDP has always believed in our constitutional rights of freedom of speech. As I said in the first statement issued after I became chairman of the party, “Our constitution is the highest law of our land and it guarantees our citizens freedom of speech and assembly as long as it is peaceful and does not harm any individual or community. A country can only progress when its citizens are engaged in debating fully and actively participating in matters that affect the lives and well-being of our people.”

(4) Regarding your long-term future

(a) If party members one day want you to stand as Sec-Gen, are you prepared to contemplate it?

Ha, ha – that is very unlikely, Dr Chee has been doing a great job thus far. In GE 2015, Singaporeans finally had the chance to see for themselves who Dr Chee really is….A man of integrity, perseverance and character. As I mentioned in one of my speeches, I was amazed by the transformation in Raffles Place from people crossing the road to avoid him before the campaign to people lining up for hours to get him to sign his books at the rallies. The internet and the campaign finally allowed an unbiased look at Dr Chee. I am happy to be working with him.