I've changed the layout to make it a little easier for people to read, as I've received numerous requests to do so.  It's a bit painful to let go of the angsty white on black I've become so used to, but if this is more effective, so be it :)

On an unrelated note, someone posted a comment on the tagboard mentioning a wild party thrown for OCS cadets involving booze and strippers, and I believe that person wanted me to address it.  I checked out the story with someone I know in OCS, and he says it's a common occurrence, that they threw the party for themselves, and that 'it was lame, anyway'.  All I can say is, boys will be boys, and soldiers will be soldiers; I can only look on with mildly disapproving amusement.

One last thing I feel I have to make clear is that the AC teachers who spoke to me about my blog were fully supportive of my writing; they were only naturally concerned and reminded me that my blog is accessible to and read by people outside of my private circle.  So please don't be mistaken: they've all been wonderful, and if I were a teacher I would dispense to my student the same advice.

Today I want to discuss a group of capable, brave men who were willing to stand up for what they believed in despite the daunting odds; politicians who have contributed immeasurably to our national awareness despite the countless challenges which have dogged them at every step.

This group has decided to challenge the central government during our national elections.  Unwilling, however, to create the impression of instability and to perpetuate the misconception that they were planning to usurp the ruling party to become the central government, they decided only to contest a minority of the seats instead of forming a larger contingent.

Yet though their antics only won them a token representation in the government after the elections, they still commanded much attention.  One prominent leader said: '[E]verywhere we held rallies, huge crowds turned up.  They wanted to see and hear us.  They gave me a big cheer each time.'

Their campaigning, however, has been shadowed with controversy.  For instance, they have been accused of being 'chauvinists', interested only in representing the Chinese community, and being willing to play the race card in order to achieve their aims.  When this happened, a campaign of hatred and character assassination was launched against them to paint them out to be dangerous in the eyes of the community.

They have also been accused of preaching to an international audience.  One man in particular has travelled widely overseas to talk about domestic politics, in order to garner support for his party's cause.  The ruling party has accused that man of trying to 'blacken the image of the central government abroad'.

Lastly, these men have launched accusations of corruption against the ruling party in order to discredit them and cast aspersions over their integrity, showing how desperately they were gunning for votes.

Yet these men have not abandoned faith.  They have kept to their cause and persevered against all the unfair odds mounted against them, to chase a dream, to woo an ideal, to court a vision. 

Given the nature of my opinions, I'm sure it's obvious to guess that I've been discussing the Opposition here in Singapore.  After all, prior to GE 2006, the Opposition had been unwilling to contest a majority of seats in Parliament since 1988 - their strategy to convince the people that it was safe to vote them in, and that their intention was not to become the ruling party.  Yet at the same time, their rallies have drawn huge crowds, notably the Workers' Party rally in Hougang this year which I had the privilege to attend.  Most of us will remember Tang Liang Hong, who was accused of being an anti-English, anti-Christian chauvinist when he contested Cheng San GRC in the 1997 general elections, and then was sued for defamation to the tune of $8 075, 000 - Tang now lives in Australia.  The part about the overseas audience describes Chee Soon Juan perfectly; the PAP has always said that he is more concerned with building overseas connections than he is in connecting with the people.  And, of course, the SDP has infamously accused the PAP of corruption many times before, and been slapped with heavily exacting lawsuits in return.

But the first seven paragraphs haven't been dedicated to describing the Opposition in modern-day Singapore.  I was instead painting you a portrait of the People's Action Party.

For the April 1964 elections (after merger, before separation), the PAP decided to field a small contingent so as not to convey the message that they were looking to usurp the ruling government.  '[E]verywhere we held rallies, huge crowds turned up.  They wanted to see and hear us.  They gave me a big cheer each time' is a quote from Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs as he recalled those days of hustings.  When they refused to campaign along the lines of special rights and privileges accorded to the Malays, they were accused of being pro-Chinese, which they subsequently denied.  And when Lee Kuan Yew travelled abroad to Australia and New Zealand where he received prominent coverage for his criticisms, it was Tun Abdul Razak, the 2nd Prime Minister of Malaysia and Tungku Abdul Rahman's successor, who said he was trying to 'blacken the image of the central government abroad'.  Furthermore, the PAP spearheaded the smear campaign against the Labour Front government, accusing one of its members of misappropriating funds, leading to the scandal that eventually caused the split in the then-incumbent party and the subsequent resignation of Francis Thomas.

The 'rites of passage' of the People's Action Party almost eerily mirror the challenges which face the Opposition today.  I have often wondered if the PAP is so effective in 'fixing' the opposition because they have so much experience in being the opposition.  More than that, I have wondered how a party who has had so much experience in being themselves persecuted can countenance to make things even more difficult for alternative voices in the political landscape.  When and how did they decide to sit down and say: "They have done this to us.  Now we will do it to others - only we will make it worse"? I think, perhaps, they never did.  Perhaps they were all compelled into the unspoken plot to an unwritten play, brought to life by vivacious marionettes.  Do be clear, I'm not accusing them of corruption.  I think they never had even had to break a law to do so.  They never had to be corrupt to do so.  They just had to be willing to go along.

Today, most of the older, more wily politicians are bowing out, and the party is being revitalized with younger professionals and civil servants.  Politicians who do not remember what it was like to fight against the odds, who have never had to fight - really fight - to win the hearts of the voters, instead relying largely on a track record of success and the fact that the various constituencies often see walkovers.  Can these new professionals hold the bay against the incoming tide of the opposition?

I leave you with a quote from a man I have always admired from the bottom of my heart.  A man who amazes me, awes me, inspires me - and confounds me.  Let us hear what he has had to say:

"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict." [Emphases mine]

- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956

In a statement released from China, where he is currently on a visit, Mr Lee reiterated what he had called Mr Gomez earlier.

The Minister Mentor had said that Mr Gomez was a liar and dishonest and that Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim and the party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang did not act honourably by shielding him.

Mr Lee added that if Gomez claims he is not a liar nor dishonest, he can go to court to clear his name.

Earlier on Friday, Mr Gomez had been let off with a stern warning for threatening an Elections Department officer, ending a three week long saga.

Investigations by police started after a complaint by the Elections Department against Mr Gomez on May 6.

Police said that after reviewing the evidence, the Public Prosecutor was satisfied that Mr Gomez had used threatening words towards a public servant.

He could have been fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to one year.

But police decided it would let Mr Gomez go with a warning instead, as he had been cooperative and had not committed any previous criminal offences.

The saga revolved around Mr Gomez 's claim that he had applied for a minority candidate certificate at the Elections Department before the May 6 General Election.

Security camera footage from the Elections Department later showed that he did not submit the application form but instead put it into his bag.

Mr Gomez subsequently admitted he did not hand in the form and apologised, saying he was distracted.

But People's Action Party leaders found his apology inadequate and accused him of lying and trying to discredit the Elections Department.

"It is in the AG's authority to exercise his discretion, but his decision not to prosecute does not, in any way, make James Gomez less of a liar or less dishonest.  I reiterate what I have called him, a ilar and dishonest, and that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang did not act honourably by shielding him.  If Gomez claims he is not a liar nor dishonest, he can go to court to clear his name," said Mr Lee in his statement.

- CNA /ls

I'm first and foremost exhilarated by Gomez's release with only a 'stern warning'.  But even as we breathe a little easier that this life, at least, has not been ruined this general election, the particulars of the case has illicited from me some observations regarding the reasons behind Gomez's release.  Let's take a look at them one by one.

1. Lee Hsien Loong does not want to taint his infant regime.  Lee has said that he wishes to create a more open and inclusive society, with a 'consultative government' -- sentencing Gomez or taking too many steps too far would bode ill for his claims.  Not following through with the intimidation tactics taken so far will allow them to point at the affair and say: see? Don't call us bullies.  We could have made his life miserable but we didn't.
2. There is insufficient evidence to hold up to scrutiny in a court of law.  I did a quick Google search on 'criminal intimidation singapore' and came up with knife-wielding maniacs.  Consider the definition of 'criminal intimidation' as per Section 503 of our penal code: 'Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation'.  Gomez telling the Elections Department personnel that there will be 'consequences' if they had misplaced or concealed the minority certificate would hold up as flimsy evidence in a court of law, given this definition.  Imagine me taking my teacher to court for telling me that there will be consequences if I had lied to her about being sick that day, instead of really having been down with the flu (who, me, never).
   
3. Now the PAP can continue with their smear campaign on his person with impunity.  Minister Mentor Lee, on his visit to China, has thoughtfully found the free time to remind us that Gomez is a liar, just in case we had forgotten.  He can do this because Gomez's name has not been cleared in the court of law, and because poor men generally have less resources with which to fight extensive legal battles with our esteemed founding father, nor his associates who likely play golf with court officials (according to Wikipedia, the chief justice, judges of appeal and high court judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister).  He can also do this because the Public Prosecutor, as we were told in the initial news releases, had found enough grounds to find Gomez guilty.  This allows the PAP to have the legal high ground on nothing more than the Public Prosecutor's claim (since when is he judge or jury) despite the fact that Gomez has not been tried in court.
4. The government fears the backlash from its people and its voters.  The online furore over the PAP involvement in the manufactured scandal has been largely negative, and mrbrown's persistently non-political podcast about the bak chor mee stall has been mimicked to me by countless people recently -- even my dad, and he relies on me to keep informed about politics! Even George Yeo admitted that the reaction of voters may be negative, in the final days of hustings.  From what I hear, people generally believe the PAP to be justified in how it handled the SDP allegations, but I haven't heard more than two, three people at most condone their approach to the Gomez affair.
   
5. Lee Kuan Yew is out of town!  Alright, perhaps I'm being a little tongue in cheek about this, but it's perfectly possible that the reins are a little looser when he absents himself.  And he has been the most vociferously relentless decrier of Gomez since the whole affair, so perhaps his visit to China is a nice opportunity for police and statesmen to do the right thing while he is gone. 
   

The rationale behind Gomez's release is likely a combination of the above factors, which upon examination point us in conflicting directions between celebration and regret -- celebration that the state cannot harass and browbeat without checking its steps and being mindful of public opinion, and regret that the manner in which the affair was handled leaves loopholes for Gomez's character to continue to be under assault in the years to come.  Singaporeans' reactions to the issue and our ensuing discourse will likely determine whether or not this new manner of manipulating the legal arm of our state will become a frequent resort in the future.