« Tribute to Canada, Ireland, and Singapore | HomePage | SDP asks IBA to express firm stand on human rights abuses in Singapore »
28/02/2007
The Politics of Dr Chee's City Arrest
Listen to this article
Why is the Singapore government intent on preventing Dr Chee from leaving the country even though the Opposition Politician has time and again shown clear indication that he will return to the country?
According to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) website, his 12 applications to travel overseas, including, a trip to visit his ailing father-in-law have all been rejected. The remaining 11 overseas trips include events of international scale such as the World Movement for Democracy 4th Assembly in Istanbul; Meeting of the International Steering Committee of the NGO Process of the Community of Democracies in New York City, US; Liberal International Congress, in Marrakesh, Morocco; and Working Group Meeting of the Community of Democracies in Rome, Italy.
One of the reasons could be punitive. This is in addition to the various prison sentences that Dr Chee has to serve for challenging the powers to be. This is clearly an example of the authoritarian regime flexing its powers and using Dr Chee as an example to other Singaporeans of what they are capable of if they dare to challenge its authority.
The other possibility is the PAP's government aversion to negative publicity; and an effort to contain such attempts. When Dr Chee goes abroad to spread the word that the PAP government is anti-democratic in forums such as the 4th Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, it has to take action to reduce the adverse impact. By restricting his physical presence within Singapore, the regime prevents him from establishing useful overseas contacts. Within Singapore, it has the local media in its bidding to contain such acts by denouncing SDP and Dr Chee as publicity stunt seeking; or that he is not interested in the welfares of Singaporeans but only keen to seek foreign support. Through such measures, PAP hopes to reduce the negative impact to its image.
The Singapore government also recognises that limiting bad publicity is only part of the equation to the public relations war. It is insufficient to salvage its reputation as a model of "Asian democracy". As such, it seeks, like what Dr Chee has done, by wooing foreign actors to bolster its reputation as a "modern, open and yet distinctly Asian democratic society". These ventures include setting up the Singapore International Foundation, hosting the IMF World Bank Meeting and the upcoming International Bar Association Annual Conference.
The problem with such containment and counter- efforts are that they do not work well over a long period of time. Overseas actors including businesses, and political organisations will become more sceptical of the Singapore government and look through the hollowness of its ruse.
Every effort at imprisoning or preventing Dr Chee from leaving the country only serves to make the government appear more heavy-handed. Every attempt to host an international event which tries to sell Singapore as a "contemporary Asian democracy" will only serve to make them look otherwise.
02:35 Posted by Charles Tan in Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | Email this
Comments
" Every effort at imprisoning or preventing Dr Chee from leaving the country only serves to make the government appear more heavy-handed."
I believe that as a bankrupt, Dr Chee had to apply for permission from the Official Assignee every time he wanted to leave the country.
When he went to the airport on 1 April 2006, Dr Chee was stopped by Immigration officials and had his passport seized. He was subsequently charged and now convicted.
The law should be applied equally to everyone unless of course you are suggesting that Chee should be above the law?
Puzzled.
JB
Posted by: James | 28/02/2007
To JB,
Don't you know that Dr. Chee applied for permission to leave but the OA did not reply until 2 weeks after his scheduled departure, and that in court they admitted that the only way Chee would know whether his application had been approved was to show up at the airport?
Thousands of bankrupts enter and leave the country all the time. Why is Chee singled out? Are you suggesting that everyone should be above the law except for Dr. Chee?
Puzzled.
When you say things like "the law should be applied equally to everyone," you are cleverly trying to change the subject of debate. You have said something that everyone agrees with and implied that agreeing with you on this one small statment means disagreeing with Dr. Chee and approving his arrest and detention. This is a standard PAP tactic. The argument is not whether the law should be applied equally to everyone, but whether the law itself is fair, and whether his treatment is fair. Defending an unjust law cannot be done by simply saying "well, it's the law" which is essentially what you have done.
To summarise, your comment has these logical fallacies:
Suppressed evidence: You implied that Dr. Chee willfully tried to break the law then in fact the authorities essentially put him in a position where he had no other choice.
Argument from authority: Because the authorities said he broke the law, then he did. Because the authorities made the law, then it is just. Because Dr. Chee was convicted in a court of "justice", then the decision was fair.
Observational selection: You assume that this law is applied to everyone except for Dr. Chee, when in fact it seems to have been enforced just for him.
Ad hominem: Attacking the writer by implying that he believes someone (Dr. chee) should be above the law when in fact he never implied anyone should be above the law
Teck Soon
Posted by: Teck Soon | 28/02/2007
Thanks, Teck Soon. pls keep this up so that we don't have to read irrational propoganda from the likes of this JB, who, i suspect is a papayaman
Posted by: Brightness | 28/02/2007
To Teck Soon,
"Thousands of bankrupts enter and leave the country all the time."
If you mean those bankrupts who have not been given the green light by the OA's office, gee, I didn' t know that. Goodness gracious me! Err, evidence to support such an allegation would be nice. Well is there?
"To summarise, your comment has these logical fallacies:"
There are no logical fallacies. The so called fallacies which you have conjured up exist only in your mind.
"Suppressed evidence: You implied that Dr. Chee willfully tried to break the law then in fact the authorities essentially put him in a position where he had no other choice."
Of course he had a choice. Is the avenue to his enquires only available at the airport? To suggest that had no choice is quite untrue. For instance, he could have gone to the OA's office to make the necessary enquiries. The fact is that he deliberately and willfully *chose* to break the law.
"Argument from authority: Because the authorities said he
broke the law, then he did. Because the authorities made
the law, then it is just. Because Dr. Chee was convicted in a court of "justice", then the decision was fair."
I made no "argument from authority." I merely commented that "he broke the law" which was a statement of fact, a point which you readily agreed and conceded when you say, "in fact the authorities essentially put him in a position where he had no other choice."
"Because the authorities made the law, then it is just. Because Dr. Chee was convicted in a court of "justice, then the decision was fair."
Yet again the inference above is entirely your own. I made no such statement nor implied that logic. You have now slipped in the "straw-man fallacy" while conjuring up non-existent fallacies in my comments. Nice. How ironical.
"Observational selection: You assume that this law is applied to everyone except for Dr. Chee, when in fact it seems to
have been enforced just for him."
Observational selection, nothing. More like self-delusion on your part. If you have evidence that bankruptcy laws have been enforced just for him while other bankrupts remain unscathed from its ambit and have escaped its enforcement, some form of evidence to support your allegation would be nice. Anyone can make totally baseless allegations which is exactly what you are doing.
"Ad hominem: Attacking the writer by implying that he
believes someone (Dr. chee) should be above the law when in fact he never implied anyone should be above the law"
You obviously have little understanding of fallacies. Here, you confuse "ad hominem" with opinion. I have not attacked anyone nor used 'ad hominems" but just offering a different viewpoint. You clearly mistake *disagreement* with *attack*, a paranoia for which I am blameless. Honest.
You clearly are a paranoid, bloody buffoon. Get a clue willya!
Now this would be a good example of an "Ad Hominem" ni an argument .. and I didn't mean *you* of course. :-)
JB
Posted by: James | 01/03/2007
"Thanks, Teck Soon. pls keep this up so that we don't have to read irrational propoganda from the likes of this JB, who, i suspect is a papayaman"
I disagree with your views, ergo, I must be a PAP anon poster.
Your simplistic and monochromatic view of the world must be so
beautiful. What clarity!
JB
Posted by: James | 01/03/2007