http://www.chinahush.com/2009/12/20/u-s-threat-theory-and-how-we-talk-about-threats/

Ok, Mr He Zhaoshen, I will not post any rebuttal to you since you have made known your physical medical problems to me via your posting above. I will let it pass all those uncalled for base remarks which you made about me, by attaching me with such lowly names, etc. They are waters under the bridge now. Forgive and forget. It’s the right time for me to practise this.

Yes, I’ve had medical training but pyschiatry is neither my area of interest nor expertise, and I am not making a living practising this trade but actually running a family business.

On an aside, Mr He Zhaoshen, I would like to advise you to seriously consider going for a medical check up because you have displayed signs of some imbalance on your mental make-up (a lot of pent up anger which is looking for opportunity to be released) which explained why you reacted the way you did, which I am sure you could not understand yourself on retrospect. I am telling you this from an ethical viewpoint, taking a leaf from the medical code of ethics which all medical professionals have to abide although I am not a practitioner as such. I will not allude any further on this as firstly, I have no certification to practise this trade (so its only a qualified opinion on my part), and secondly, this is a third party channel and therefore, very inappropriate to discuss such a matter.

I wish you all the best.

No, I haven’t visited the said website for some time now. But thanks for highlighting the mentioned article, I agree without any reservation your comment that Mr Yoong Siew Wah is an accomplished and eloquent speaker and writer, among other things that he is capable of. I will drop a line there when it is convenient for me to do so at a later time. Thanks again.

Mr He Zhaoshen,

This is in reply to your query as to why I joined in the debate between you and Mr Harding. I had been following the exchange of correspondence between the two of you on the subject of interest and could see the divergent views there. However, your various comments on the achievements of our government (under the helm of MM Mr Lee Kuan Yew) appeared to me to have gone overboard, while at the same instance, your misguided view that many foreigners are out to create political chaos in our system seemed to have grown stronger without incontrovertible proof, except for some minor circumstantial events happening here and there.

As you appeared to me to be presenting a very unbalanced approach to the merits of the argument, I thought that it was an opportune time for me to make some address of my own to counter what, in my view, was an incorrect perception you have of our government. There is a substantial difference between impression and perception. You see impression is only a cursory view of opinon while perception is an impression that has been transformed into a belief system. A person with a certain perception of things when coming into contact with a different or opposing set of views will tend to react adversely and become defensive because he equates them as an attack on his belief system. And that is why we should always receive the views of others with an open mind, and it is only with this sort of disposition that we are able to avail ourselves to other sources of views. When we have many divergent views (or options) we have the benefit of a wider perspective to look at the alternatives. It’s like choosing a colour. If you had only two colours to choose from, say red and blue. your option would only either be red OR blue, both of which may not have been your prefered choice. But if more shades of colours were presented to you besides the red and blue, you could have chosen, say, for instance, the colour purple. Can you see the difference on the two choices you have just made – one which was not the optimum and the other more relective of your personality. And so I say perception is exactly like choosing a colour.

I was trying to get you to widen your horizon and not cast your periscope only in one direction. However, I may have started on a wrong footing and the rest is now history. I hope the explanation can help you put the matter to rest.

Following what I have narrated above, I would add that we should not take events and occurences merely at their face value, if our intention is to understand how and why they happen. A lot of political events that takes place carries a double-face, with under currents that sometimes escape even the most discerning eye. The appearance at the surface may have a totally different complexion below. And politicians are the best practitioners of this art.

Having said that, we can all look back to some of the news of a political nature that happened in Singapore, and re-look them with a more inquisitive mind, taking into account the elements of “means, motive, and opportunity” (meaning to indentify who benefited from those events (if they are any). Here are some examples for instance :

a) Mr Phey Yew Kok’s sudden disappearance from the radar screen after he had made an admission of guilt in committing fraud on Live TV in a late night telecast (he was at the time the Secretary General of the National Trade Union Congress – the NTUC). Who benefited from this (if any)?

b) Mr Francis Seow’s sudden downward spiralling of political fortune after intially being slated f(unofficially) for very high political office by the PAP leadership. He was at that time the government’s Solicitor General. With his
strong command of language and eloquence in speech (and writing) he was cetainly capable of holding his own and was rated within the same mould as Mr Lee Kuan Yew. It was envisaged that he would eventually enter politics and subsequently hold a high cabinet position, a very probable successor to the prime minister. Unfortunately he too, fell off the radar screen. Why would the PAP leadership allow such a good thinker and talker to slip through its net while it was out scouting for future leaders of such calibre? Again, who benefited from Mr Seow’ downfall (if any) ?

c) Mr Devan Nair’s ignominious sudden fall from grace, from the highest office in the land, as the President of Singapore, to the lowest doldrum of civilised society – an alcoholic without a lucid mind, as we were told. His was the sad story of the greatest irony that was never told. From a position as Secretary -General of the NTUC, being its supreme leader and wielding enormous political power given the strong worker support that went with the position, he was given a cloaked appointment, being elevated to the position of President of the nation, one which did not hold any political power at the time. It was, in the eyes of the more educated electorate, a public relations post more ceremonial than anything else. Gone was his power base of being able to amass a commanding figure of electoral votes of 600,000 (rough approximate) belonging to union members. If indeed, it was true that he was not having a lucid mind as the government contended, then it would make sense why he would want to switch from a position of power to one wearing a ceremonial outfit. However, it could also mean that, perhaps, he had been coaxed into accepting the switch during his bouts of stupor. But what if all these about his penchant for intoxication was not true? Then he would have been a victim of conspirer(s) from the day he held office till the day of his eventual political downfall. Again we ask, who benefited from this (if any)? For this particular case, we have to backtrack a little to see what Mr Nair’s alignment was at that time, i.e. whether he had any divergent views and disagreement with the policies of the PAP government. I will leave you or any reader at this forum, whose imagination may have been fired up, to perform this task. No, this is not a wake up call. It’s a proposition of an alternative that’s all.

The above, then, are some instances, which, when re-examined under a microscope (and juxtaposing them with the objective of seeking for signs showing a common trend if, indeed, any exists) our original opinion of what had happened would change and, perhaps, in the process enable us to develop a clearer and more enlightened perception of things.

There are many other examples, but their inclusion would constitute a very lengthy essay here. So maybe, perhaps, some other time.

He Zhaoshen, by your comment on “Lim” I take it to mean “Jim” which is me, and I would like to provide you the appropriate reply. I am am sorry to learn from your post above that you had a medical condition. It is not true that I chose to attack that weak spot of yours and taunt you over it deliberately. I had no knowledge whatsoever regarding your physical body. And nobody ever contacted me to inform me about your condition.

The reason why I chose to focus on the national service issue was that I had noticed from your writings you tried to avoid the subject, which of course gave me the impression that you were either older than the 18 years of age mandatory requirement when NS was first enforced in 1967, or you ‘emigrated’ elsewhere to avoid doing and then come back decades later to just pay a compounded fine, which some unworthy young men did. The latter, in my opinion, would have been the most unpatriotic thing to do.

I had, on most occassions, made my literary ‘attack’ on you through sarcasm with a little tinge of humour in it with the view of making the postings here lighter in weight and more fun in reading. That anecdotal part regarding the escaped Woodbridge patient was meant for fun reading. Surely you didnt believe that I was dead serious on that one?

Also, like I said in my first response, I had not earlier engaged myself in making any contribution to the forum here although I have been following developments for some time. It was your avoidance of the national service issue which sort of sparked off my response because I felt that a lot of us male citizens have gone through it. I had no fore-knowledge that you had not done or was excused from doing national service. The issue was meant to impugn your claim of patriotism, not to taunt a medical condition suffered by you of which I had no prior knowledge of.

I hope that satisfy you. And now we must all move on.

Mr Low – As you have pointed out earlier that you occassionally surf the website Leewatch.info, I wonder whether you have read a fairly recent article there entitled ” Ex-ISD Director wants Lee Kuan Yew to undo the “damage” done to his reputation” ? Its a post taken from an article in ex-ISD Director, Mr Yoong Siew Wah’s blog (a hyper link is provided to this blog for details of his essay). Its provides rather interesting material, and Mr Yoong,undoubtedly, is a rather eloquent speaker and writer in the mould of Mr Francis Seow and Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Regards.

I got into a quarrel with JH because he sent me 2 unsolicited e-mail on the Goodyear episode. I took exception with the ‘things’he said in thar article because there was not an iota of truth about Singapore being coerced into helping to bail out Lehman Bank and UBS. UBS is not an American set-up. So there’s no logic that the U.S.should coerce Singapore into helping a Swiss Bank. Also you and I know it’s not true that Singapore is now the 52nd State of the U.S. I responded to Harding’s article the way I did because of what I had read in the press about common people who’ve had lost their life-savings through investing in ‘products’ initiated by American financial institutions such as the Lehman Banks. You will also remember that it was reported that the CEO’s of these failed financial institutions were paid bonuses from ‘bailout money’. Knowing you now to be a sensible person, tell me how you felt upon reading such reports in the press. And by press here I do not mean the Straits Times. I subscribe to many online newspapers in Australia, America and Great Britain. So this is how I stay abreast of developments in differnt parts of the world. But please tell me why, in the first place you entered the ‘fray’ between me

Anyway, I am sorry if I caused you any harm. If I did it certainly was accidental. There was no malice on my part, for in the first place I had no knowledge whatsoever on your medical or physiological condition. Believe me, when I questioned you on the national service stuff it was purely on the patriotic platform, i.e. for all the patriotism you displayed I wanted to know whether you had served your stint. If your answer had been a yes then we would have been on equal grounds. But if it was a no then my intention was to chide you for questioning my loyalty and patriotism that’s all. It is unfortunate and purely coincidental that I had accidentally touched on a “vulnerable” area. Please accept my humble apologies.

As you can see from my various rebuttals to you in my earlier postings, I have always maintained a gentleman’s approach, although at times I may have used stronger language on you which now, knowing the things you courageously disclosed about yourself, I regret. You should also remember that I had maintained a controlled and courteous stand towards you and accorded you with considerable respect even though you were my adversary in the ensuing debate. I had, as a mark of civility, never used any base, foul or profane language, or any derogatory remarks on you.

Also, I do not know Mr Harding personally or otherwise, and I certainly am not acquainted with your friend Kong-Wei (whom you just mentioned) because I have never surfed the said website mentioned by you. And I think that you should not rashly jump to the conclusion that your friend or friends have done you in. Perhaps it may be wiser to have a chat with them first before you draw your conclusion on your frineds. It may be a case of mistaken belief, which I honestly think it is. Also, I do not know about the other writers who have spoken up against you on this forum.

It;s a good thing you write in with the disclosure because I am sure those other writers who were poking fun of you, more in jest than with any attached malice, after having known your background would have been surprised and perhaps feel sorry for the hurt they have unknowingly caused you.

Do not be disheartened. Life is full of mystery and purpose. I believe there is a purpose for each and every individual to be born in this world. And until we find our purpose and destiny, life can never be peaceful because we are always engaged in some form of activity, either this or that. It has become a very acceptable adage now to say that everything that happens, happens for a reason. So maybe you, me, Mr Harding, and the others, were drawn into this website by divine force so that we can learn and gain some useful experience from this episode. I certainly have learned something here, for which I thank you for helping me get some ‘enlightenment’ on the viscosity of life.

I wish you well Mr He Zhaoshen.