//
you're reading...
Musings

Dr. Chee Soon Juan And The Oslo Freedom Forum: The View From The Ground?

Last week, the Huffington Post published an open letter (here) penned by the founder of the Human Rights Foundation, asking for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to grant Dr. Chee Soon Juan approval to leave Singapore to participate at the Oslo Freedom Forum.

I thought the issue was a wholly legal one (correct me if I am wrong): Dr. Chee has yet to prove his ability to settle his outstanding debt, so the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) is wholly justified to prevent him from heading overseas. Therefore, it is not entirely fair for Mr. Thor Halvorssen to contend that “[y]our government’s travel ban … is but the latest in a series of instances when he has been penalised for criticising Singapore authorities”. Mr. Halvorssen chose to – quite strategically – conflate multiple contentions about purported political motivations and the supposed abuse of human rights (which can be quite confusing because of the multiple perspectives, as mentioned later).

However, a quick browse through the comments of the article yielded some interesting observations about Dr. Chee and the incident from different individuals. Certainly, these views are far from representative, but they were intriguing reads.

Dr. Chee Soon Juan And The Oslo Freedom Forum: The View From The Ground?

Dr. Chee Soon Juan And The Oslo Freedom Forum: The View From The Ground?

Dr. Chee Soon Juan And The Oslo Freedom Forum: The View From The Ground?

The View From The Ground?

1. I found it difficult to reconcile the two images of Dr. Chee that were regularly presented: one, some Singaporeans who have met him and his colleagues hold him in high esteem for standing his ground (this is complemented by different video footages, which show Dr. Chee to be thoughtful and highly intellectual); two, besides the asserted complicity of the mainstream press (presenting him to be, I think, a deranged lunatic), some individuals on the Internet – based on an assortment of comments – disagree with his ideals and methodologies (here), and cast doubt over his credibility and conduct (here).

The multiple accounts surrounding his lawsuits and defamation cases also complicate the evaluation; if we looked beyond the legal conclusions, how could we ascertain the validity of Dr. Chee’s arguments against the present system?

Unfortunately, Dr. Chee’s results during the series of General Elections have been rather dismal.

2. Ultimately, a politician’s worth is determined by his performance at the polls; unfortunately, Dr. Chee’s results during the series of General Elections have been rather dismal (24.50% in 1992, 34.86% in 1997 and 20.25% in 2001). The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) did make progress in the 2011 Elections (from the 2006), but its gains were overshadowed by the gains made by the other Opposition parties.

Founded by Mr. David Marshall, then led capably by Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam (who, incidentally, worked hard to be discharged from bankruptcy), and now helmed by Mr. Low Thia Khiang, the successes of the Workers’ Party (WP) are especially notable. The WP provides a stark contrast to these circumstances, and I suspect its sustained success has driven the SDP to start working the ground now for 2016 (with gradual grassroots involvement, introduction of new high-profile members et cetera). Unless Dr. Chee and the SDP can make more substantial in-roads at the voting booth, the aforementioned perspectives aired by Singaporeans might only persist.

Advertisements

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.

Discussion

31 thoughts on “Dr. Chee Soon Juan And The Oslo Freedom Forum: The View From The Ground?

  1. The root question is why Dr Chee is jailed in the first place ? The same questions ask by Dr Chee are same questions raised by opp party in parliament and in rallies, and bloggers in the internet. So what debt are we are talking about ? Just because LKY using the law to bankrupt Dr Chee says so ?

    Posted by Marx | April 30, 2012, 1:55 pm
    • Dr. Chee was jailed for breaking the law, and was made bankrupt for making defamatory remarks. Whether these charges were politically motivated is contentious (as I raised), and online perspectives are quite divided too. May I, however, ask if you have specific examples of these “questions” you alluded to?

      And I suppose, the ability of other political parties to make substantial gains in spite of these purported limitations could point to the postulation that they are doing something quite remarkable.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 2:35 pm
      • If you judge a politician’s credibility by his votes, then every PAP MP must be credible. So the next time you slam a PAP MP in your blog, does that not make you a hypocrite?

        Posted by Ivan | April 30, 2012, 3:58 pm
      • They are important factors in my perspective, but I never contended that votes per se were the sole determinant of a politician’s credibility (or importantly, his abilities); therefore, your postulation is fallacious. The PAP has managed to secure votes and political control because of various factors (riding on historical hegemony, the election system; and some would contend that these may be unfair), and Dr. Chee’s SDP has failed to secure more votes because of another set of reasons (some, as highlighted in the commentary, are uncomfortable with this methodology – are you going to fault them?) It is – therefore – not fair to conflate these two different sets of factors.

        Jin Yao

        Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 4:57 pm
      • Can I say that just because of someone ask about whereabout of the money, it becomes a defamatory remark ? Bear in mind that Dr Chee is a tax-payer and is shareholder of Singapore Inc just like most of us are. And for example, I invest in your company, and I as a investor ask where is the money invest in, and account for the bulk for the money , are you as the CEO or chairman to sue me as a investor for asking such question ? Nowhere did I say that CEO or board are corrupted , so how is it asking a question of accountability and how the money is spent endup as defamatory remark ? This question is not a political question, it is a question of accountability, transparency and responsibility, so please do not keep pushing it as political question.

        So why the distraction of law of this and law that , but not the root of the problem ? My question why bother to say that Dr Chee break the law when the law is unjust and applied politically ? Isn’t the same question Dr Chee asked is exactly what we are interested all along ? I mean isn’t the loss of huge investment money is another reason why we are suck up and own, left and right , or do we continue to live in denial ?

        If you do not know what questions and remarks that Dr Chee make all along, may I know how do you arrive that Dr Chee make defamatory remark ? Did you just accept what the mainstream media report as the gospel truth ?

        Posted by Marx | April 30, 2012, 4:35 pm
      • Can I say that just because of someone ask about whereabout of the money, it becomes a defamatory remark ? Bear in mind that Dr Chee is a tax-payer and is shareholder of Singapore Inc just like most of us are. And for example, I invest in your company, and I as a investor ask where is the money invest in, and account for the bulk for the money , are you as the CEO or chairman to sue me as a investor for asking such question ? Nowhere did I say that CEO or board are corrupted , so how is it asking a question of accountability and how the money is spent endup as defamatory remark ? This question is not a political question, it is a question of accountability, transparency and responsibility, so please do not keep pushing it as political question.

        I comprehend your concerns. Then, my question to you would be this: many commentators – including academics, writers and probably politicians (not too sure for this) – have asked for more transparency and accountability in these aspects; however, a vast majority were not slapped with lawsuits. Some argue that Dr. Chee’s lawsuits were politically motivated (it is relevant here), but at the end of the day it may be a question of him adopting the wrong methodology by making off-the-cuff remarks. This was the point I highlighted in the article, that these points are uncertain and contentious.

        So why the distraction of law of this and law that , but not the root of the problem ? My question why bother to say that Dr Chee break the law when the law is unjust and applied politically ? Isn’t the same question Dr Chee asked is exactly what we are interested all along ? I mean isn’t the loss of huge investment money is another reason why we are suck up and own, left and right , or do we continue to live in denial ?

        Ibid. The view can be this: Dr. Chee might have raised the “right” questions, but it could have been communicated ineffectively (legally, he was deemed to have crossed the line). We may not deny the the limitations and restrictions imposed in the country, but if you cannot operate within these boundaries (other individuals and parties have proven capable to do so), then you have no choice but to accept the consequences.

        If you do not know what questions and remarks that Dr Chee make all along, may I know how do you arrive that Dr Chee make defamatory remark ? Did you just accept what the mainstream media report as the gospel truth ?

        I don’t think this is a fair insinuation. The reason why I asked politely for a “question” you alluded to is because it would not be fair to conflate his remarks and comments as generalised “criticisms”. The mainstream media may have portrayed Dr. Chee in a certain light – unfair sometimes, I could contend – but have you not contemplated if his brand of confrontation and “civil disobedience” might not have been as constructive as they were intended to be? I feel that there might be a disconnect between what he is fighting for and what Singaporeans genuinely want, or desire.

        Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 5:31 pm
  2. I see. So you contend that general elections are not free and fair. Thus, to you, CSJ is not credible because
    1. He and his party did not win any seats.
    2. He was sued for defamation.

    And am I right to say it is also your view that for the above reasons, he does not deserve to travel out of the country?

    Posted by Ivan | April 30, 2012, 6:45 pm
    • 1. I never did assert that GEs “[were] not free and fair”. However, while Elections in Singapore are free of electoral fraud, I am in disagreement with some of the established rules (for instance, the GRC system as well as the propositions of gerrymandering).

      2. Dr. Chee and SDP’s inability to win seats or to win a significant percentage of the votes, when juxtaposed against the results of their Opposition contemporaries, count against them. It might then, correspondingly, speak about their inability to connect with the electorate.

      3. “CSJ is not credible because … He was sued for defamation”. When did I postulate this?

      4. You are conflating very different issues here. Dr. Chee’s inability to travel out of the country is, in my opinion, a “wholly legal one“. “Dr. Chee has yet to prove his ability to settle his outstanding debt, so the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) is wholly justified to prevent him from heading overseas“. How would you argue against this?

      Now, if you contend that the reasons for Dr. Chee’s bankruptcy are politically motivated, you are certainly entitled to your views. However, I am merely highlighting my personal perspective that “[t]he multiple accounts surrounding his lawsuits and defamation cases also complicate the evaluation“, because the different parties involved (even observers) put forth dissimilar opinions (which are, unfortunately, extremely nebulous).

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 7:02 pm
    • Because Chee Soon Juan did not follow rules nor the laws?
      http://app2.ipto.gov.sg/IPTOServices/IndividualBankruptcy/InformationforBankrupts/tabid/377/Default.aspx

      Please read paragraph 13.

      —————————————————————————-
      You shall also submit documents in respect of your travel application, if so required by the Official Assignee. For example, if you are travelling for employment purposes, you shall be required to submit your letter of employment.

      You have been classified in the Green Zone (i.e. you have been co-operative in the administration of your bankruptcy estate and have been paying regular monthly instalments), you will be granted immediate online approval from the Official Assignee to travel.
      ——————————————————————————

      I’m assuming Chee is not co-operative.

      Posted by Aaron | May 1, 2012, 3:44 pm
  3. Thus, because it is a “legal” issue, you contend that its application of the law is just, and so the Oslo organisers have no basis to ask the Govt to change the ruling?

    So you are unsure if elections can be considered free and fair, but you acknowledge unfair practices by PAP. Yet you said ultimately, a Singaporean politician’s credibility must still be judged by the vote count.

    What is really the point of your article then? That Chee is undeserving of the invitation by the Oslo Freedom Forum? Or that Low and WP are more deserving?

    Posted by Ivan | April 30, 2012, 7:32 pm
    • 1. If you think otherwise, do substantiate how you think the application of the law has been unjust in this circumstance.

      2. You are doing yourself a disservice by construing my remarks: I am confident that Elections in Singapore are free of electoral fraud (that is, absolutely no rigging is involved); however, there might be unfair practices – as interpreted – introduced by the PAP. These are two separate contentions.

      3. Dr. Chee’s inability to attend the forum is a purely Iegal issue. My point: “I feel that there might be a disconnect between what [Dr. Chee] is fighting for and what Singaporeans genuinely want, or desire”. That is my opinion, and you are entitled to disagree with it.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 9:26 pm
      • “3. Dr. Chee’s inability to attend the forum is a purely Iegal issue. My point: “I feel that there might be a disconnect between what [Dr. Chee] is fighting for and what Singaporeans genuinely want, or desire”. That is my opinion, and you are entitled to disagree with it.”

        I think you might be trying to split hairs here to speak of “purely legal issue”.

        First of all, any legal system don’t operate in some pristine environment, where laws are applied by some benign and flawless entity. Chances are laws will be enforced or determined by some flawed human being, For example, DPP’s discretion on whether to charge someone or not and in the case of Chee it is handled by The Official Assignee. It is somewhat strange that when it comes to Chee, baring him from travel seemed somewhat, let’s say consistently, applied whereas others like the ex NKF bankruptees don’t seem so. It was so purely legal how does one explains the inconsistencies.

        Secondly, it is worth noting in Singapore there is this wide latitude when it comes to the application of administrative laws — i.e. laws made up by the enforcer rather than those passed by legislators. Some to argue that Chee’s case is being handled purely on a legal basis is somewhat missing the point as the administrator of the law in the case of The Office of Assignee does have wide discretion on his/her part to make up his/her own decision.

        One of the problem as I see when in comes to Chee’s predicament as one of the “legal process” taking its course is to avoid the uncomfortable truth thrown up by a holistic view of the law. Chee as I notice is often judged on how he broke the letter of the law but when it comes to the spirit of the law, those who use the law to judge him often prefer to steer clear. My view is if one wants to judge him as a legal pariah judge him on both how he broke not just the letter but also the spirit of the law.

        PS: For the sake of objectivity, my quick view is that Chee is probably the more astute of the politicians than Chiam (whom I would regard as more of a buffoon, albeit loveable one). So you know when my personal attitude lies.

        Posted by Tan Ah Kow | April 30, 2012, 10:53 pm
  4. IMO, this is where Singaporeans who are honestly disenchanted with the govt for very good reasons are doing themselves in with this sort of to-ing and fro-ing. The PAP is too happy to see this sort of immature and amateurish attempts at coming to terms with Dr Chee’s politics. In fact, it is highly likely that it is behind all this garbage views that some of you are trying to insist on which makes you a highly suspicious plant and mole in our midst. Personally, I absolutely see nothing wrong with the way and manner Dr Chee is pursuing his political objectives. For a man, who is also a husband and a father, he has my admiration as someone who has the guts and gumption to put his beliefs before his family and his own welfare and well being. Unlike the rest of you armchair political chattels. He is head and shoulder over any of you armchair critics, some no doubt are in the payroll of the ruling party in disguise.

    I respect him for his beliefs and his ideas. For those who talk about the ‘legality’ of his actions and his bankruptcy liability, you are either nincompoops not to even consider the circumstances of how he was ‘fixed’ or moles of the govt out to create division. And for those who of you who are not agents of the govt, you are only make spectacular fools of yourselves in the manner you talk.

    I know it wouldn’t go down well, but if the hat fits wear it.

    Posted by anon | April 30, 2012, 8:44 pm
    • 1. I am not a “plant and mole in our midst”, so I suppose I am an “armchair political chattel” in your dictionary. I can live with that, though I merely wanted to put forth my proposition that there could be a particular divide between what Dr. Chee is campaigning for and what Singaporeans genuinely want, or desire (his dismal electoral performance sticks out for me, unfortunately). You have every right to believe in his beliefs and methodologies, but that – I feel – does not give you the right to disparage others for disagreeing with his strategies and approaches.

      2. Coming from a “nincompoop”, could I invite you to present a brief exposition on the “circumstances of how [Dr. Chee] was ‘fixed'”, on any instance regard “the ‘legality’ of his actions and his bankruptcy liability”? Pardon my ignorance (I have done my personal readings), but do enlighten from your perspective.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | April 30, 2012, 9:19 pm
      • Jin Yao,

        I and many others were witnesses to the events that unfolded due to the extensive
        coverage of the pro-govt MSM when they happened. It is not something I can do justice to in a ‘brief exposition’. By the way, you were most definitely not who I have in mind in my comments. The target of my comments were the drivels from those who posted their comments.

        May I suggest you try to include in your ‘personal readings’ the Straits Times archives of that period and familiarise yourself with the principle characters such as Vasoo, etc. While you are on it also consider those ST reports on how JBJ was also similarly ‘fixed’. They are very informative and educational reads I assure you. For depth, also scour the ST archives for how LKY ‘fixed’ news tabloid like the Singapore Herald and how the ST/SPH came to be managed and controlled the way it is today. Even fools would benefit from however an elementary grasp of a historical perspective.

        Posted by anon | May 1, 2012, 7:57 pm
      • Hello,

        That sounds like a good plan. These are aspects that I might not have taken into consideration, so probably some reading based on your recommendations would do me good (another gentlemen raised good points here https://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/dr-chee-soon-juan-and-the-oslo-freedom-forum-the-view-from-the-ground/#comment-2383). I did read online, though as I mentioned the accounts are varied (from different perspectives) and rather confusing, and I may have been looking at the wrong places anyhow.

        So, thank you (am looking them up as I type)! Pardon my initial defensiveness though; I try to convince myself that nothing is personal online, but I do get carried away. One of the great things (albeit underrated) about writing here – especially given my relatively young age – is that I get the privilege of hearing from more individuals, and to hence evaluate matters from their perspectives as well.

        Jin Yao

        P/S: Besides making a trip down to NLB, are there any other ways to access the aforementioned archives or reports? And, where do you recommend I start (I seem to be viewing the same commentaries over and over again, unfortunately).

        Posted by guanyinmiao | May 1, 2012, 10:10 pm
  5. Apparently some posters here can only comprehend in black and white.

    “I feel that there might be a disconnect between what he is fighting for and what Singaporeans genuinely want, or desire.”

    That’s the point of his article.

    Posted by Melbourne | April 30, 2012, 9:02 pm
  6. Hi Ivan

    I see that you have imposed on the writer to take a stand on this issue hence you make the claim of the writer postulating that Dr Chee is “undeserving” to leave the country, which is an entirely subjective human perspective, and definitely not what the writer has set out to achieve in this writing no matter how I read this article.

    The writer made two key points:

    1. Clarifying the misrepresentation of the open letter on a left-leaning platform (which in itself is an indication of an undertaking of the letter), that as much as one can argue on the premise of political-motivation in this, there is an equal possibility that it is simply a matter of legal regulations (and of it being applied just like any other legal regulations that serve to safeguard the social fabric of the nation).

    By debating on whether the law in particular is justly applied on Dr Chee’s offense is like asking why should vandalism, the bubble-gum ban, or littering be. There are underpinnings to every law in a country, politically-motivated or not (maybe LKY had a bad experience with bubble gum), that is a different discourse altogether and that should not be muddled in the intention of this article.

    The intention is simply that there is always two sides of the same coin. Which makes the open letter no different from the multitudes of human-right protests that pours in whenever a foreigner gets convicted of a drug trafficking in Singapore and faces the death penalty. No where in this article suggests they have “no basis to ask the Govt to change the ruling” – however – if it goes down to a matter of upholding legal regulations then it’s a wholly different argument from the undertaking of the open letter.

    2. Revisiting Dr Chee’s image/popularity – you applied a counter-argument that is purely assuming that when the writer pointed out Dr Chee’s dwindling performance at the GE, the opposite must stand for the ruling party. There is no basis to impose that on the writer other than that being our own biasness towards the ruling party. On the contrary, it is consistent in saying that we can *also* look at PAP’s drop in % of votes as well in indicating a drop in popularity. The writer has stayed consistent with his views.

    The writer is then merely pointing out polling % as evidence as indication of his continual loss in popularity in the country, which does not serve to help Dr Chee in his pursuit or garnering support from the ground/masses to get him to Oslo. A better way for you to therefore counter-argue is to provide evidence and indication that would stand to speak of Dr Chee’s increasing popularity, if not, consistent.

    The point to note is that the “point of the article” is not always about a writer imposing his opinions, I’ll give credit to the writer for not doing so. But instead, he clarified misrepresentations and speculations and point out facts that are crucial in allowing readers like us to form our own perspectives and be our own judge. It is not about who’s right or wrong, it’s about knowing why we believe in what we do.

    Bless your heart!

    Posted by fivetwosix | April 30, 2012, 9:27 pm
  7. Dear blogger,

    I see your commentators are driven by emotions and their blind support for Chee Soon Juan notwithstanding Chee’s illogical approaches.

    The problem with SDP supporters is that they believe what Chee did is right and they undermine anyone who does not stand on their side. This is not democracy at all. Chee often talk about free speech and democracy; but isn’t critisizing SDP and Chee considered free speech as well?

    I find it interesting you compared WP’s JBJ with Chee. You are right. You made a good point. JBJ fought back against all odds while Chee did nothing except ranting away how Singapore is a lousy country. But WP won a GRC. It say’s a lot.

    Chee is still a bankrupt for god knows why. It has been so many years. Did he make an effort to get out of bankruptcy to stand for elections? Even NKF ex-chairman TT Durai repaid his 4 million within 5 years for the amount he owed NKF.

    Why can’t Chee learn to get out of trouble like how Low Thia Khiang did? Low Thia Khiang has been Opposition MP for how long?

    If you were to evaluate the logical points (putting emotions aside), you will find Chee’s actions distasteful.

    Posted by Elaine | May 1, 2012, 10:18 am
  8. The irony is that these days SDP-owned TOC is censoring comments that disagrees with SDP. Only PAP bashing comments are approved on TOC these days. There’s no democracy and freespeech in SDP-owned TOC.

    Posted by Aaron | May 1, 2012, 3:37 pm
  9. I like your comparison between CSJ and JBJ.I shall repost a comment here to enlighten your readers, if you don’t mind.

    —————————
    http://app2.ipto.gov.sg/IPTOServices/IndividualBankruptcy/InformationforBankrupts/tabid/377/Default.aspx

    13. How do I apply for permission to travel overseas?

    If you wish to travel outside Singapore, you should apply online to the Official Assignee for permission, stating:

    * the reason why you need to travel
    * your destination of travel
    * the period of travel
    * the name of a surety, if necessary, who will guarantee your return.

    You shall also submit documents in respect of your travel application, if so required by the Official Assignee. For example, if you are travelling for employment purposes, you shall be required to submit your letter of employment.

    You have been classified in the Green Zone (i.e. you have been co-operative in the administration of your bankruptcy estate and have been paying regular monthly instalments), you will be granted immediate online approval from the Official Assignee to travel.

    For those who are not in the Green Zone, you will not be granted online approval. You are advised to contact your Case Management Officer.

    If you have any queries regarding the submission of your travel application, please email us.

    —————————

    So Chee was disallowed travel because he has not been paying? or he has not been co-operating? Nobody knows. Why doesn’t Chee Soon Juan show his supporters the official letter or e-mail which declined his travel request?

    Posted by Aaron | May 1, 2012, 3:56 pm
    • The only reason why a bankrupt is not allowed to travel has to be the possibility that he might not return and the official assignee would be in a spot to answer to the creditors.
      Is there a possibility that he would not return? Looking at the big picture, this is quite remote in his case. Of course, this is only my opinion.

      Posted by anon | May 1, 2012, 8:05 pm
      • You are implying law ministry is lying through it’s internet website? The whole thing is in Black and White. Why are you assuming everything is against the “great” Chee Soon Juan’s way?

        Posted by Cheng | May 2, 2012, 12:31 pm
    • Good internet link. Thank you.

      Posted by Cheng | May 2, 2012, 12:30 pm
  10. i like an argument, so..

    The author stated “..the asserted complicity of the mainstream press (presenting him to be, I think, a deranged lunatic)..”

    Thus, shouldn’t his last line read: “Unless the aforementioned perspectives aired by Singapore’s mainstream press change, Dr. Chee and the SDP’s failure to make more substantial in-roads at the voting booth might only persist.” instead?

    Chee may or may not be a deranged lunatic, but to borrow a line, it may not be entirely fair to presume Chee’s lack of political worth from SDP’s lack of political success. Not great examples, but Bush 43 did beat Kerry, and Hillary lost to Barack.

    (Btw, you’re really careful with your writing; i tried to be careful with my argument as well. I’d rather your posts were more opinionated, then we can bash each other up 🙂 )

    Posted by Name | May 1, 2012, 9:05 pm
    • I was putting the impetus on Dr. Chee and the SDP, on what they could do on their part (assumptions: i. they do not have the ability / much say to alter the nuances of the mainstream press; ii. the mainstream is unlikely to alter significantly in the near future). Along this tangent, I could point to Mr. Chiam, as well as Mr. Low and his WP team, who have managed to win seats despite these advantages. You could contend that the press has been more biased against Dr. Chee and his party, but this is pretty hard to qualify.

      I’m not too sure how the American examples fit in (unfortunately I’m not particularly well-versed in this area). And, you give me too much credit, haha (besides, this post is not as contentious, I suppose). I just muddle along, really; but always learning!

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | May 1, 2012, 10:42 pm
  11. My personal view is that all elections since 1959 had been 99% free but 0% fair until 2011,when this changed due to social media,it is now 99% free but ?% fair.
    100% free and fair elections only exist in text books,I would be happy if we go 99% free and 60% fair,what do you think?where are we now?

    Posted by Free & Fair | July 17, 2012, 5:58 pm
  12. Hello! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when viewing from my iphone. I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be
    able to resolve this problem. If you have any suggestions, please
    share. Cheers!

    Posted by sumo deadlift | October 12, 2012, 8:27 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 30 Apr 2012 « The Singapore Daily - April 30, 2012

  2. Pingback: The SDP May Day Rally: Four Afterthoughts « guanyinmiao's musings - May 2, 2012

  3. Pingback: A Break « guanyinmiao's musings - October 1, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow guanyinmiao's musings on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,150 other followers

Twitter

%d bloggers like this: