Monday, June 4, 2012

A Dark Period In Time

I never said I was going to prove anything in a court of law

"Religion is the opium of the people", is one of the frequently paraphrased quotes of Karl Marx, originally translated from the German, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes". Charles Kingsley, Canon of the Church of England, wrote this four years after Marx: "We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order." Lenin, the other great Communist, also said, "Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward." So why would hard core Marxists avowed to violence, embrace peaceful religion, and vice versa?

Never mind it doesn't make sense, the Singapore government insisted in 1987 that church organisations were used to further the Marxist cause.

During a hastily arranged meeting between then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and head of the Catholic Church in Singapore Archbishop Gregory Yong and several other Catholic Church representatives, the group was shown Internal Security Department's (ISD) produced documents relating to Vincent Cheng. The 2 June 1987 meeting and subsequent press conference during which Lee Kuan Yew corralled Archbishop Gregory Yong to attend was intended to show that the government action to arrest "subversive elements of the Marxist plot" was not directed at the Catholic Church. He was prepared to go after idealistic students he dismissed as "do-gooders who wanted to help the poor and the dispossessed" [as addressed to the Reverend Giovanni D'Aniello, charge d'affaires to the Apostolic Nunciative], but the Catholic Church was different game.

Whatever impression the press released photo may convey, the archbishop was far from convinced that Vincent Cheng and associates were involved in clandestine communist activities. When he asked for proof, this was the response:
"I have never said I was going to prove anything in a court of law.
It is not the practice nor will I allow subversives to get away by insisting that I got to prove everything against them in a court of law or provide evidence that will stand up to the strict rules of evidence in a court of law."

Words from the same guy who demanded that the Labour Front government in 1956 release his then PAP assemblyman, Lim Chin Siong, "if the government wants to retain the slightest pretensions to democracy.  If it cannot, then it must release him. And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained."

The hard truth is that the 16 young victims (6 more were later picked up) were targeted for retributive action for rendering services to JB Jeyaretnam and the Workers' Party during the 1981 by-election and 1984 election like printing and distributing pamphlets, and providing editorial assistance at The Hammer, which the Ministry of Home Affairs interpreted as "a useful medium to disseminate anti-government propaganda and influence public opinion against the government."


  1. All accusations shall be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, this is the very first basic law concept that any university worth its weight will teach its students.

    When this basic concept can't even be upheld in public service by a lawyer with a first class law degree, is this not a disgrace to his alma mater ?

    So which type of dishonesty is more serious, the one that harmed so many innocent Singaporeans and caused so much suffering to their loved ones or the one that involved some minor error of judgement for some petty matter ?

    Maybe our leaders can verify whether there is such a dishonest person still serving us in public service ?

    1. Hipocrisy of the highest order.
      Communism and Roman Catholicism just do not mix!

    2. The sticker lady has already spoken for all of us.

      Limpeh is My grandfather's road.

      Should have done one more version ' My grandfather's country/law/govt'!

  2. Throughout most of history.
    Kings & emperors suka suka (arbitrarily) make and break laws as they please.
    Such was the case with China and her long line of emperors.

    A written set of laws.
    Accessible to all citizens.
    Modified only under transparent conditions.
    Is the exception rather than the rule.

  3. Same man that talks about repression being dangerous and having an open society, then pooh-poohing polling and saying he would shoot 200,000 students to end disorder.

    Same man that states that the army and the police will turn their guns on their masters should repression become too acute, then state after a few decades that the army should be called in should there be a freak result in elections.

    Same man that used to call for the 'creation of a fabric of an open society' and 'allowing the tools of democracy', then later stating Western democracy does not work in a unique case of Singapore and saying that the government decides what is right and never mind what the people think.

    Sense a pattern here? I guess those that study law and become politicians must have a bare face suited for lying, or at least are good at flipping pratas.

    1. After reading about how he served the Japs during the occupation of Singapore in WW2, I am dumbfounded by those in his era, that none could sniff out the potential treachery and cowardice in him, especially LimChinSiong and company, even those PAP oldguards.

      It begs the question how incredibly cunning he had been for so many decades, maneuvring himself into power and manipulating everything around him to remain unchallenged.

  4. That's the advantage of an autocratic dicatatorsip. One can do as he pleases. One does not have to put up with the hassles of separation of powers and checks and balances.

  5. Is Your Karma6/05/2012 11:40 AM

    The son has the guts to hold a COI for SMRT but no balls to hold one COI for the injustices his father and his old cronies have committed in the name of his own law? Why? This is a blunt tool that is going to implicate too many people in his camp? This event will hang around his neck for as long as LKY don't deal with it. It can only be moved on when he move his pride and ego aside to repent. Karma is a bitch and it will come back and haunt not just him, but his son and the party. He has his window of chance and he continues to wish it go away. While the new generational of young singaporeans watch how this genre of politicians setting an example of their definition of democracy and hypocrisy in one. Bravo ! Bravo!!

    1. That's why DPM Teo is given his 'f-off' treatment at the Pre-U.

      One just have to look at the "glory and esteemed success and greatness' of such country leaders in the past ie. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mubarak, Kim Jong-Ill will see how history today look at the people/citizens who condoned and supported such regimes! They are the daft, hypnotized and naive ones who have injustices done to them and their own repeats it self here in Singapore.

      Another 50 years down the road, Sinkies will be scorned at like the germans - what the hell are they thinking? !!! Tha'ts the price to pay for stupidity or blind faith.

  6. "The son has the guts to hold a COI for SMRT "

    Haha, guts to hold COI ? Isn't that that is a red herring and great wayang ? Why didn't the govt touch on why we need to bail SMRT with taxpayer money with near billion , and oh... is it because TH run by his wife hold more than 50% of smrt, and money that is been for smrt maintenance and capacity infrastructure endup as as profit for TH which does not even need to account to the public ?

    "This event will hang around his neck for as long as LKY don't deal with it. "

    You see all the Sycophants acting blur refuse to talk about the event while LKY is alive, and the old man is the evidence, but when Lky passed up, they will say "the old man is dead and there is no evidence at all."

    1. Press For Hard Truths6/06/2012 2:53 PM

      "the old man is dead and there is no evidence at all."

      I believe that is exactly their ploy. Is a pure waiting game.
      Once he's gone, it will be easy to say 'the man is dead, let's move on'.
      Here's the irony? The man is not dead YET (the last time i checked!)
      So why are we not moving in on this COI ?
      Just a bunch of weak-ass milquetoasts.