CLASSIC INTERVIEW: My first interview with Jaslyn Go, Jarrod Luo, & Seelan Palay (Singapore Democratic Party), 22 September 2009.

Roderick Chia, Kieran James, and Jarrod Luo, around 2011-2012

My first interview with Jaslyn Go, Jarrod Luo &            Seelan Palay (Singapore Democratic Party) 

Tuesday, 22 September 2009 @ Gelenggang Park, and then SDP office, Singapore 

Interview length: 2-3 hours. 

Part 1

Jaslyn Go (aged 37): Singaporeans are brought up in such a way that unemployed people are lazy. Unemployment is not by choice especially in current situation. People don’t choose to be unemployed. There is social pressure to work. Here the social pressure is very strong. I know one friend who dresses for work and leaves early so the wife does not know he is jobless.

Jarrod Luo (aged 25): It is a huge loss to self-esteem to know you are jobless. There are huge social disincentives to be unemployed. So, you cannot say that giving unemployment benefits leads to laziness. 

JG: In Singapore, tax seems low but there are many other taxes.

Kieran James: Tell me your history and how you became politicized on the opposition side.

JG: I grew up in a very poor family; we stay in a one-room flat. There are six of us in family, stay with Grandma as well. Our place is very cramped with so many people living under one roof. I grew up sleeping on the floor without a mattress. Because my parents could not afford electricity, me and my sister went to community centre to have a bath. It was an HDB rental flat, most of the citizens lived in a rental flat, this was 1970s, my father was on and off working, he was a very compulsive gambler. There were many families in this situation.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the government introduced HDB. It was Bukit Merah. All my neighbours were living in these conditions, all staying in one-room flats. At that time, a lot of Malays lived in that neighbourhood and they had large families. We tended to see a lot of quarrelling among family members, over jobs. We saw a lot of quarrelling at that time- mostly it is due to money or the lack thereof. At that time, I was too young to compare kampongs and HDB.

JL: In those ages, HDB residents were evicted from kampongs and relocated to public housing. They were not given the market rate of compensation, it’s your own land, your own house. There was sub-par compensation.

JG: I was still below ten, so I was not aware. 

JL: There was strong discontent among the people. 

JG: I live near where JBJ lived- opposition sentiment was quite strong. I saw him at the interchange selling books and newspapers. This was 1970s/early 1980s. I remember seeing him in the train station. Even though we were very poor, my mother tried to dig up money to buy newspaper from him.

I was even too poor to go to school; I was very fearful about paying school fees as I was afraid my teacher would ask for school fees. My school was far from my place, walking to school took 30 to 40 minutes. Public transport was out of the question. I had to walk through the factories, and I was chased by dogs.

In my secondary years, I had to support myself, I worked as waitress, factories, and McDonald’s. I worked six to eight hours, seven days a week. Whenever I go to school, I was always very tired. I remember in school that none of my friends went through what I had gone through. They seemed to have no problems buying in the canteen. 

JL: They were mostly from middle-class families.

JG: They are seriously not as poor as me, I was just surviving. Many people in my blocks, Malays, even Chinese, give up school early and become hawkers and cleaners. They give up their studies to help paying their school fees. They end up hawking at Newtown Hawker Centre.

I am still staying at Bukit Merah. The government has demolished and rebuilt the one-room flat, now I stay in five-room flat. Just opposite me are rented studio apartments. The whole family lives in this one area. 

Seelan Palay (aged 25): It is very depressing, there are no [internal] walls, it is 8 metres by 6 metres. There are two different worlds. When the loan sharks want to target you, they throw red paint on the door. Many have red paint on the doors. Just opposite are the expensive HDB flats. You can see how unjust it is. You can see each other from each other’s windows.

Grandma, father, girl, mother, two boys live in a room, 6 metres by 7 metres. You can survive; they have a roof over their heads. What about the kids? They will think study is no good for them, many social problems multiply from there. This is LKY’s constituency, he said “show me a beggar”, this is Tanjong Pagar GRC. 

JG: My brother ended up not studying, gambler, nuisance to the family, cannot hold down a proper job, environment played a very big part.

When I’m young, I’m facing all these kinds of problems. My teachers should know I’m going through these problems. My survival instinct is so strong, I push myself to work at a very young age. No help was rendered or even a teacher noticing I had problems or could not pay school fees. In those days, Malay students were subsidized more at school. I was led to believe the reason then that the policy was we must not offend the Malays.

Even though now I’m not that poor, but not rich either. I remember the poor days and what I went through. I hope the children of our future will not go what I went through. The environment then was not conducive to study.

I am quite an accidental activist. I protest against the rising cost-of-living in Singapore. Since I brought up children, I realized that bringing up children is not cheap in Singapore. My first child cost $12,000 to deliver him. The support is lacking in Singapore for new mothers. I found it a very scary experience. Not much is given to first-time mums, nothing is done for you, confinement nanny/midwife, Chinese cultural thing, costs $2,000 of salary plus confinement levy.

No assistance at all is given. When my children came nursery age- my goodness, I am shocked at the charges of child-care in Singapore. The government subsidy is so miserable for child-care, it’s a paltry sum, cost $500 a month, government pays $150 if not working and $300 if working. The government complains about low birth rate, 2003 was lowest in Singapore’s history, no bonus, no nothing at that time. Being a mother made me realize bringing up a kid is not really cheap in Singapore- the government don’t give enough help and still blame the problem. When SDP had a rally, I was charged in court and facing a lawsuit (15 March 2008 protest, World Consumer Day). That was my maiden protest.

Last time, I did not know SDP that well. Because I was being charged, it gave me an opportunity to know them better. I think SDP are voices for the people, raise issues that concern us. After they charged me, to be fair, there must be certain fear- my family will know about it, how to explain to friends. I always avoided the cameras, but my pics came out in the paper.

My family knew it was me, then all hell broke loose. I now come here very often. My family are not very supportive still, but I try to reassure them that I know what I am doing.

I start my children young, one is four, one is five. I tell my family I am responsible for my own actions. My children were among the youngest protesters too. I was not arrested on the spot because my children were there. 

JL: It would cost too much politically to do so.

JG: Because they charge us together, there is a certain bond among us. It gives us the opportunity to know each better. Before the protest I did not know them very well. Now I know them very well on the personal level- as an activist, a politician, and a friend. I personally help SDP more often although I’m not yet a member.

In Singapore, the poor are the forgotten ones. Every day I see poor people in my neighbourhood.  

JL: It is more a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind- homeless people are actively rounded up. Recently, one guy was arrested and fined $800 for sleeping on the bench. Our social justice here is totally lacking. This was a high-profile case.

JG: Some people say there is no poverty in Singapore- that is complete bullshit.

JL: Now, in order to stop people sleeping on the bench- now they put handles, pretending to be handrest. 

JG: They don’t even want to give bench to the poor. 

JL: Although it’s public property, they redesigned the benches so no-one could sleep on them.

JG: They don’t like people to sleep on the bench anymore. I don’t know what kind of society we have when there is no compassion for the poor.

JL: Some say, “the government is doing right, homeless are a blight on society”. The whole society has been decompassionized, brainwashed. They are disenfranchised. Singaporeans don’t question what causes led them to become homeless.

JG: The article with me and my kids in the picture was done after I was charged. That was the interview Dr Chee did- English version is on the SDP website. You can use our names, definitely. I’m getting bolder. Since after my pic is available, and my friends know I’m with SDP, there’s nothing left behind to hide.  

JL: You can start living with this media coverage, it’s a humbling process. 

JG: HDB only rents to two, not to one; requires two single strangers to come together. Sometimes this causes friction, one person was murdered. Forces people to live outside their preferred lifestyle. We don’t have enough rental flats.

It pains me to see old people treated like that. I can’t forgive the government for treating our elderly this way. They are the ones who built the country up. We went to a nursing home, and it is sad to see some of them living like that- forgotten. The elderly in Singapore are not living with any type of dignity. Is this how we reward our elderly? This should not be the way. Only MPs and civil servants are enjoying pensions, for the normal person it was taken away long ago.

JL: If the clan associations started anything [perceived as political], they would be closed down. The situation is insidious because people are enforcing it upon their own. The government just puts pressure in the right places, and the people do the rest for them, they just don’t realize it. Right now, it is hard because PAP and the country are one and the same in people’s minds. To not support PAP is to be disloyal to the country and betray the country. Young people are depoliticised and enthralled with the latest gadgets; let them be enthralled to the latest show on the movies and leave them to their own devices after that.

JG: People tell me if you oppose PAP, your children will be removed from school, and you won’t be able to find a job.   

Part 2 (after a break) 

SP: If there is need for such protestation, these young people help us to do that. The leadership stands ready to do what is necessary and can stand by them. At least 30 young people we have right now who we can rely on. So, I think we can somewhat soften our own image now.

JG: I want my children to have a happy childhood. I don’t send my children to any enrichment class, except for swimming and gym, only because they requested it. You can never get the childhood back. Do I want my children to be another typical Singaporean? I teach my children not about education but love, love for the less fortunate, love even for the foreign maid. Many employers don’t let the maid have an off-day. You can blame the government for it- if the maid gets in trouble or gets pregnant the employer is responsible. We have $5,000 bond with the government. If the maid decides to elope with someone else, you lose the $5,000. If I don’t let the maid go off, I have more problems. I advocate human rights; my maid has two days off a month. That is considered very liberal. Some maids, when they enjoy that type of freedom, they want more and ask for more. Now, we have to get insurance for foreign workers even outside of office hours. Even our own people don’t get to enjoy this. A new law will be if you don’t provide maintenance for parents, you can be sued. But why make it into a law? Life is so costly, the cost of providing for relatives is pushed on us. A minister said if you can’t afford a nursing home here, send them to JB. What sort of attitude is this?

JL: What made you become politicized? I would not say it came fast to me, but I was always one to question authority that demanded absolute obedience. In primary school, I had a debate or quarrel. My English teacher was teaching the class about measures of time. She said a century is 1,000 years ago, a millennium is 100 years. Naturally I objected. She said: “Don’t question me in class”. I learnt that authorities that demand obedience can still be wrong. Facts are still facts, no matter what you insist them to be. I was only 8 or 9, that is the earliest experience I can remember. I did not make a fuss. Now I know my rights, I speak up.

It was not any isolated event [that politicized me] but I gave authority figures that had power a hard time. I was pretty much an outcast, I spoke up in my class, my classmates shunned me, I spoke up for what I felt was right.  Others did not join me as they felt they would be collateral damage if the hand of authority fell down on me. I felt a kindred spirit with SDP, it struck a chord with me, it’s what I always stood for. They are taking on the whole machinery. God bless SDP, I voted for them last time, 2006GE. They didn’t win unfortunately. I admire their bravery. 

KJ: Why don’t fired workers become politicized? 

JL:  Many workers fired don’t think of the root of the problem, they don’t want to create waves, it’s too uncertain, but to me an uncertain chance of survival is better than a certain chance of brain death under the system. At least I can know if I failed, I tried. I did not submit like a lamb to the slaughter. It’s worth the gamble.

Many people don’t become political due to fear, but they don’t have much to lose. I am willing to take the gamble. Five-room flat in a decent area is $500k-$750k. For that amount, I can get a nice house [in Australia], yacht to sail in the Brisbane River.

KJ: Did your Australian experiences radicalize you? 

JL: When I went to Australia, it helped me in the process politically. It broadened my horizons quite a bit. It gave me a vision of a better world out there that I can fall back on. That is not what many Singaporeans think- they don’t think of the system that made it better for the people overseas. They only look at trivial reasons for cross-country difference. They don’t look at the reasons why the country progressed in that way. Most people, especially Singaporeans, clam up about political topics.

The first time I was caught at an SDP event, the police were trying to disperse us. That was the first official contact I had with the SDP. That was my first official connection with them. I turned up as an onlooker. I met Dr Chee and told them I voted for them and was grateful for those who gave me a chance to express my view. Police were there videotaping and surveillance and I think I was caught on their cameras. I got to know the party people; I spoke to the more prominent ones that I could recognize. 

KJ: What do you think of opposition party MPs Chiam and Low? 

JL: Personally, I think that I am disappointed with their performance, and I expected more from them. It is pretty much telling why the PAP is not giving them such a hard time- that says a lot already. It looks better in the international arena, they are “state-sanctioned” oppositions, look-alikes, puppets.

Chiam is more like a tribal leader, he does not aim to campaign outside his constituency. He is aiming to hold his seat rather than be a true opposition. Low is the antithesis of an opposition politician I admire so much, like JBJ. What use is there for them to collect the parliamentary allowance when they do not do enough of the right thing? It is very selfish and people of Singapore stand to lose much from that. 

SP: As a member of civil society, I feel these opposition parties are not really challenging the ruling party. They should know by now what the ruling party is doing for the country. In other countries, the opposition politicians do more- why don’t the opposition here just join the government? It’s majority-rule so as to ensure that the minority is not left out. Some human rights enforcement is needed to ensure that the minority are not abused or left behind. Any party in the twenty-first century if they don’t include human rights in their agenda then they are quite backwards. Young people now care about human rights. If you don’t offer it, you are an old fogey who simply says, “vote for me, I will give you rice”.

[The last word was misheard as “rights” by JL, leading to laughter.] 

KJ: Do you think Singapore should have merged with Malaysia?

JL: I think Singapore should have merged [with Malaysia], but on better terms. I don’t know too much of the details, but when LKY did the referendum there were only three different options to merge. This was when they joined the whole of Malaysia, but they did have internal control. Barisan socialists opposed lack of a “no” option. LKY stated that spoiled votes were to be stated as yes votes.

Personally, geographically, and historically, I believe that Singapore should be part of the greater Malaysia. They share so much history and economics. There should be some autonomous state government while leaving foreign affairs and defence to the federal government. Then people would be free to move about, now you waste two hours on a public holiday getting your visa stamped. This is because of the mistakes made by our politicians years ago. I heard the Sultan of Brunei offered a piece of land larger than Singapore to the Singapore Malays at the time of separation. It was to be an enclave to the Malays of Singapore. The Malays of Singapore did not buy [accept] it. He was rejected. The idea of one race dominating another has been magnified and propagandized. This is anecdotal evidence. The PAP and UMNO like to play divide-and-rule politics. If the people stand united, no government can stand in the way. The ruling party would love to play one opposition party against each other, and they are constantly doing it. The parliamentary opposition are doing this many times over, which I feel is very sad, rather than putting time and effort in opposing the PAP.

*****THE END*****

CLASSIC INTERVIEW: My first interview with Mr John L. Tan (Assistant S-G, Singapore Democratic Party), 22 September 2009.

My first interview with Mr John L. Tan (Singapore Democratic Party) 

Tuesday, 22 September 2009 @ SDP office, Singapore

Interview length: 2 hours.

Kieran James: Will there be major changes when Lee Kuan Yew passes away?

John L. Tan (Assistant Secretary-General, SDP): Yes and no, I don’t think so- change is something we are certain of, it will not be that dramatic. LKY has put in place machinery that is well-oiled. Judging by how things are going, the system that he put in place will not collapse overnight. The ministers are so highly paid, will they allow the system to collapse? They are so highly paid, far beyond what they deserve really. There may be subtle changes.

There is this notion, I am trying to think of how to best explain this- in psychology, cognitive dissonance theory has been a very influential theory. Many events do fit in with this theory. I am specifically thinking about the ministers in charge after LKY is gone. They have begun to sing the song according to LKY- this has been assimilated in people’s thoughts. Some things may change like you see in China. These people are so well rewarded. There is this minister Vivian Balakrishnan- he was not in partisan politics, he was a vocal critic who writes to the newspaper forum, expressing his view against government policy. He might be a member of the Round Table; Raymond Lim is now Minister of Transport. Bala is now Minister of Youth and the Arts, I think. Round Table was set up to criticize government policy. Both were co-opted. R Lim is quiet; he doesn’t say a thing anymore. For Bala, he now sings the establishment song verse by verse, note by note. This is where I believe cognitive dissonance is at work. He does some amount of rationalization and judgement over time. He has come to believe in the current system that he used to criticize. There is not only reward but also penalty for not following the norms. If you go against the norm the penalty is always there whether it is real or virtual or imaginary- it is still real.

My prediction is PAP will not change; they may give some handouts and concessions here or there. Things will not change in the core. A good example is Deng Xiaoping- he still controls the core but has given up certain areas. 

KJ: How relevant as an example of surprise change is the removal of the right-wing Howard government in Australia in 2007? 

JT: You cannot compare Australia and Singapore- you are talking about comparing a democratic and non-democratic society. For what happened in Australia to happen here it is a long shot. What happened in Malaysia is a better comparison. You had a voice working behind the scenes, people that are not happy with the current system, they become emboldened. I hope that can happen in Singapore. It will take a couple of things: The vocal opposition must not just be kept alive but must be driving it. Just in the last two or three years, the number of our supporters has risen.

There are two kettles of fish: those who go on their own expense, we go overseas and look at the system there, I went to the USA for 10 years, I saw the system there, I thought there is hope for Singapore. We come together and try to do things for the society. Other students go overseas, funded by the government, and whenever they give scholarship, they require a bond of 4-10 years. Typically, these people come up, they are considered the elite, their whole career path is figured out for them. We have this capacity to compartmentalize, I suppose. 

KJ: So, these people are seen as the creative ones. 

JT: I want to talk about the word you use, “creative”.  They may be brilliant and intelligent but I’m not sure about creative though. Once you break the norm, there is always penalty. We call them in Singapore “the OB markers”, the out-of-bounds markers, the invisible lines you do not want to cross. The teachers, the lecturers know not to cross it. It’s a very subtle thing, it becomes a part of us, everybody seems to know of it, where it comes from. I do not think a parent consciously tells a child “Take off your shoes as you walk into the room”.  This is subtly being transmitted from one to another in our culture. The journalists have their OB marker, and the main thing is not to cross the establishment.

Last year, the party was being sued. I walked into the court compound with a T-shirt of a kangaroo with a judge’s robes- just that alone cased me 15 days’ imprisonment last year, 15 days for a T-shirt, I was not shouting any slogan, there was just a T-shirt and over $8,000 costs I am supposed to pay. People may be shocked at that, that is nothing compared to what happened to me out of the legal system. James Cook University fired me. You throw the whole notions of academic freedom out the window. They (JCU) did not have to fire me, but they did. They are worried that they will be penalized one way or another. The government can take away the licence to run a business.

With the election system they have in hand, I think they have been manipulating the electoral system for the past 40 years. They have been getting more sophisticated at it, a level of precision you have not seen anywhere else. The level of gerrymandering you see here is like nowhere else, we are talking about extreme precision.

KJ: Why does the opposition contest just a few seats using the by-election strategy? 

JT: Contesting just a few seats is not really a strategy, we don’t just have enough people to put into every seat. Our election is no longer free; it is no longer fair. It is so highly manipulated that I think everyone who comes from a truly democratic society will be shocked by what goes on here. I have a friend who wrote a book banned in Singapore. There was once where in 1982 JBJ became the first opposition parliament member in an Anson by-election. This guy [the friend who is an author] told me the PAP campaign member came to this guy- this is not verified- and said to LKY there is a real danger this election will fall into the hands of opposition. The guy asked LKY should we rig the election? LKY said “no”, he said “let him come in, we will deal with him as an insider”.

We are in a fix. Sometimes in a situation, if I can bring you back to Florida some years ago-Bush versus Al Gore- and the results depended on Florida. There were claims of miscounting. If the Supreme Court had decided for Al Gore- the decision can be either/or, they have a choice between two alternatives, either will be perceived as out of line by each other’s supporters. In Singapore, the lack of independence of judiciary is here. LKY said “let JBJ come in”. Initially, LKY said in his braggard pride “good, we welcome the opposition into Parliament. My MPs do not have the opportunity to spar. He will be a great punching bag for them”. He allowed live TV debate into Parliament. He said the people saw how farcical it was to have an opposition. JBJ turned out to be a guy much stronger to be reckoned with. He was no punching bag. LKY had to jump out of his seat to cancel JBJ, LKY looked so bad in the debates he banned the live telecasts that he asked for! There are no live telecasts today. Live telecasts are over now. 

KJ: Are there three approaches, Chee and Chiam, with Low in the centre?

JT: There are those like Chee and JBJ that are confrontational. The establishment has sold the idea to Singaporeans that our style is not to be confrontational. I would dichotomize it: Chiam and Low are the “approved”. Both did not start out as establishment figures. True to his form and words, LKY struck to his words and kicked JBJ out of parliament. LKY worked out ways to remove him. First, they had a parliamentary committee to investigate. They decided he was abusing his parliamentary privileges. They removed his privileges and sued him for criminal libel. They passed a law to disqualify anyone from standing for election who has been fined $2,000 over 5 years. That is what they did to JBJ. They charged him on several counts. He was a former district judge, and he stood before Michael Khoo. Here you see the OB markers at work.

KJ: What is the situation like now for your party?

JT: Right now, is really hard. Right now, we are seen as radical, so we are not widely accepted.

Michael Khoo found JBJ guilty and he fined JBJ $1,900! He knew where the OB markers were. He tried to be smart; he followed the OB markers, but he broke them just a little. Immediately after that decision he was transferred and today he is a lawyer in private practice. Also, a retrial was called. There was no flaw, substantial or procedural. The sentence was not up to what LKY wanted. A re-trial was called. The second judge knew exactly what to do and JBJ could not stand for election for five years. He was thrown out of Parliament twice and forced bankrupt twice. Chiam came in around this time. During the next GE, Chiam came in. Chiam was not as fiery as JBJ but yes, he did ask some serious and good questions. But, after he saw what they did to JBJ, he mellowed, he mellowed to the extent that you hardly hear any good questions from him as he wanted to keep his seat. By controlling, you kill a rooster to scare all the monkeys., LKY said this, that’s his philosophy, he killed JBJ to scare all the politicians, now he [Chiam] became so mellow, he hardly questions anything at all. He threw up some tokens, but he was never in serious debate. The latest I heard- he had more PAP ministers and MPs at his daughter’s wedding than there were opposition.

Chiam was the founder of SDP.  I was with Chiam in 1987 or 1988- before Chee joined in but I got disillusioned with the party and I left. After that, Chee came in, that’s when the upheaval starts. A lot of people blame Chee for that, the bubble bursts when Chee came in but it was already brewing.

Low Thia Khiang is a different story altogether. Francis Seow wrote a book, the two faces of the judiciary, based on that. After the lawsuit that ensued, they were after the head of Tang; Seow lives in exile now in Boston, Tang went off to exile in Australia. This was the first time that someone claimed there was rigging, he ended up with 40% plus [Cheng San GRC, 1997GE]. This guy, an ex-journo, claimed he was sitting at the school where the vote was being counted. The time for submission of slips was over and the gates were closed. A van came in carrying more slips into the compound. The rest is up to people’s imagination.

Robert Ho was a journalist; he is a little mentally unstable. When he tried to sell his story on the internet and elsewhere, the police arrested him and put him in the IMH, mental hospital. That seems to be one of the tactics, to put hot potatoes into the asylums. Robert Ho has a history, so it is hard to argue on that point. They put another guy, C.J. Remesier, a broker, into IMH when he has no record. It was after this incident in 1996 that JBJ got sued again.

The facts are that JBJ wanted WP, his party, to help him pay for the defamation, for his loss in court. But the party refused. It was around this time that he was ousted from the party and at this time Low took over as party chief. Since that time, the party was no longer the same.

Low has been less vocal than he was before. In recent years, he has said nice things about the PAP. This is part of the culture here. It is a culture here by necessity, but it is not necessarily our natural root. It is a culture. Low was bought over, co-opted. If you read the newspapers, an average Joe would start out praising PAP. We understand what Low did is natural and we would not have been surprised. It is part of “our culture”. But he has gone beyond that. He said P”AP has a passing grade”. Coming from opposition that is kind of weird. Low has come to the place where he says the two nice things about PAP but not the three negative things. They are somehow co-opted or cowed, I’m not sure if that’s the right words.

There was one person who escaped from prison, a terrorist. Low in Parliament asked the Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, if the guy already died in prison. There were rumours he died but government said he escaped to cover up. Low asked if the rumours were correct. The minister said, “do you believe in the rumours?” Low said no. Minister said “well, there you have it”. People were asking for Wong’s resignation. Low asked the PM should Wong resign. He said, “What do you think, Mr Low?” Low stammered, sat down quietly. This is the type of lame thing you see, not like the Westminster parliamentary debate.

This may not be a fact, not verified. If JBJ was ousted, the former PM Goh Chok Tong approached Low and gave him an option- did he want the party to survive or be wound up? If JBJ continued as leader, it would be wound up. If you want the party to continue, oust your current leader.  This was unsaid, but the implication was there. 

KJ: Does SDP need a charismatic Anwar type leader? 

JT: It will be helpful for sure if we can get a charismatic figure like Anwar. But I don’t see that as essential. Anwar plays a pivotal role in getting the various races to work together. The majority is Malay, so he is able to garner that type of support. He is friendly to the Chinese and Indians; the Indians are the most marginalized there. In Singapore, I don’t see that as totally essential but anything of that nature will help. In Singapore, I don’t see the dynamics as being the same. 

KJ: Which demographics do you think make up the SDP core support?

JT: It is very hard to gauge who our supporters are. Those who are vocal and who dare to be identified with us- English-educated. Because of the leadership [being English-educated] as well. When Chiam ran SDP, the name was the same. Before they had more of the Chinese-speaking people, back in the 1980s I was one of the few English speakers. Chiam was not running the party like a democracy. My opinion is he runs the party like a dictator, that’s my opinion. People on the street who donate, these are clearly supporters.

In the last election, the opposition got 33% as a whole. It’s really hard to speculate on our percentage support. If we really had a free and fair election, we could get more than 25% but how much more is very hard to gauge. If you are to write about the party, you must change the perception of the readers as to what SDP are about. If there is anything positive about the party, it is not understood or it is spun around. Readers have a very erroneous view about who we are and what we stand for. That I think is very important. We have to get them all in order to win- liberals and workers. The perception game is very hard to fight. LKY is a master at that, he knows that. There is a problem in our society over the term “liberal”. I am comfortable with that but Chee and Siok Chin are not so comfortable with that, this is something more internal. The word “liberal” has been demonized. I like to stay away from the word in politics but in private life it will be debated. I am happy to call myself liberal.

This is one of the greatest misconceptions people have about the SDP.  We also engage in civil disobedience and press for freedoms. People think that is all we are about. The mainstream media love to point this out. People cannot connect freedom of speech with bread-and-butter issues. They have a right. People think we are just idealistic. If you compare us with the current WP, traditionally they should be similar to Labour in the UK. But look at what they are proposing in their Manifesto. We advocate minimum wages, helping the people to be able to stand on their own two feet financially, so to speak. The WP tend to be more inclined to what the PAP are saying, it maybe they do not want to offend them too much, they are just tweaking their policy. For the poorer people to be helped, we need a revamp of what we are doing. It benefits the elite. I don’t think a minor tweaking here and there is going to work. The Average Joe on the street has no voice at all. People will talk about cost-of-living but they do not politicize it. There is no alternative voice.  

KJ: Are your political views influenced by religious belief?

JT: My wife and I are from a very religious [background], I was a missionary. It’s so easy for them to look at the bible and pick up phrases and verses that justify the ways they behave. I was deeply involved with them for some time.

The moment you talk about politics, they will pull out one verse. You will find that verse does not hold water at all, that is what cognitive dissonance is all about. There is your action, your thoughts. These two are in conflict, they are in internal dissonance.

Unlike Freud, cognitive dissonance has gone through much empirical study, and it has held up. Freud had a big picture; cognitive dissonance looks at small topics.  It finds people cannot live with this type of contradiction between belief and action. Something has to give- either change behaviour [or thinking]. Leon Festinger predicted that it is harder to change your behaviour but easier to change your thinking. Because they have found so much justification they continue smoking. Marx and Freud looked at the forest, but Festinger looked at the individual and the leaves.

They [government] are charging 19 of us, some have already pleaded guilty, there are 12 or 13 of us, for illegal assembly, procession without a permit. Chee got 10 weeks this time, a brand-new sentence for speaking in public, he will appeal- $10,000 or 10 weeks in lieu. Chances are he will go jail, and we do not want to pay as a sign of protest as well. Nowadays, we won’t use that word “protest” again, that word has been demonized- confront, protest, liberal, they have all become dirty words. Some people have advised us to soften our image. I think we have reached a point where we can soften our image.

In years past, I think we had to push the envelope. Now we have done enough- in protests to attract a small number of young people who have bought our ideas. They have similar ideologies- “We are very media-savvy. We use the internet to reach out to the online community.”

*****THE END*****

NEW INTERVIEW: My third interview with Mr. Goh Meng Seng (People's Power Party), 13 May 2026 (includes Yaw Shin Leong case comment).

               My third interview with Goh Meng Seng (People’s Power Party) 

Wednesday, 13 May 2026 @ Singapore 

Interview length: 2 hours.

Goh Meng Seng: The political landscape has changed very much. Both the opposition and ruling party have gone through renewal process. In fact, the opposition have a lot of change when Tan Cheng Bock formed Progress Singapore Party. But the middle ground was pro-PAP. On the spectrum, you have white, some grey, blue, some green in between. The middle class support him because of his past record in government. He made a mistake. He should have formed an alliance with other political parties at the end of 2018.

In Malaysia, Anwar became the PM, right now, through an alliance. In my view, that should be the way in democratic young countries like us. He [TCB] wants a full control, he didn’t want to share power, that’s my view.

In 2022, he [TCB] had an acceptable result, he had two NCMPs. In 2025, he lost both. He was forced to retire, I don’t think his party will make a comeback again unless he makes a coalition which I think they are trying to do but it’s a bit too late.

So, what we want is a progressive government, to have a more balanced representation. That’s the immediate goal. PAP has 60% votes but 90% of the seats in Parliament. That is not very healthy as a model of political representation. Even so the majority rule in Parliament is very fragile. Because you are having a monopoly of power but only a 60% rating. It can go out of power. A lot of Singapore opposition community will laugh at it but it’s a true assessment.  PAP actually knows that. We have become something like in UK. It was normally two-party system, but one party is in government. But Lib Dems made a breakthrough when there was a hung parliament. They went in with Labour. I think it will happen again with Reform. In Singapore we need a party to be a confirmed minority like Lib Dem or Reform. I am comparing three systems- Singapore, Malaysia, and UK.

In my opinion, the Singapore system is unstable. It will either go in Malaysia or UK direction. Two-party system can only go so far due to diversity and the speed of information in the world. It is very hard to control information flow in a digital world. LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] railed about this in one of his speeches. We don’t even have a satellite dish, there is a need for the economy to grow, and you have to green up the entire system. The effect is very limited. At any point in time people can set up another website. How can you control? The mechanism of full control is not available.

Back to the 60% rate, there are three parts of our population. Officially, we have six million population, including the foreign workers. Our citizens are 3.7 million. Among this 3.7 million, about 30% are new citizens, not indigenous citizens. I believe those who have been born in Singapore, they have lost the majority. They [PAP] have lost the trust of the Singapore citizens. 

Kieran James: It is like Hong Kong now. 

GMS: Precisely. The new citizens support the PAP. They bring in 20-30K. I have seen the statistics. There is a great discrepancy. I have actually pointed it out. In fact, I think this year or last year, resident births do not cover resident deaths. The increase in population now mostly comes from new citizens. They will become old citizens. They will face the same challenges we face- high cost of living, high tax. Their [PAP’s] power base will be eroded, even with the influx of new citizens. PAP is in a desperate situation. We don’t have the third force, like Lib Dem. We might end up with a hung parliament. Having said that, Workers’ Party is very like PAP, so they won’t have any trouble working together. 

KJ: What do you think about the writing of Yaw Shin Leong out of Workers’ Party history?

GMS: Nobody is perfect. Both WP and PAP have people who are adulterers. That is their personal relationship. Nobody can guarantee that they can have a perfect relationship. Let’s keep it private. Singapore is a very conservative society but it’s not a big problem. Let them settle their own personal problem. Shanmugan was divorced and got remarried.

Does that make you an unacceptable person? Do we care? As long as they carry out their duties, it should be fine. We cannot expect a perfect person to be up there. Lying is a worse thing in the public domain. Lying under oath is a much worse thing. If you lie in Parliament, how can I be assured that what you say is true? We have a strange position on that.

 I find it complex that such a strict form of morality exists. I find the way they manage adulterers is just a political exercise to get rid of the people they don’t want. It’s got nothing to do with public interest, that’s my view. Singaporeans have a very warped sense of morality. 

KJ: Is Singapore a socially conservative society? 

GMS: We have many conservatives among Singaporeans- the churchgoers, the mosque-goers, even some of the Buddhists. However, it does not mean we have the right values or perspective. What works for personal morality and public issues? Every political party tries to be populist in that sense. It tries to consider whether the voters are conservative or not. If you look at it in an objective way, if your CEO is an adulterer, will you sack him? What you value is the skill set of him running the company, nothing to do with his personal life. People do get carried away, from your business. But if the CEO lies to the boss, will you report it? We have a very slanted value out of what’s important, that’s my view.

In the past, LTK [Low Thia Khiang] is in charge. But, why now, in spite of agreeing Pritam was convicted, given a [formal letter of reprimand] by the party, it’s a joke. Does it mean he is truly indispensable? Nobody should be indispensable if you run a party well. Like Iran, if you kill the first general, a second general will come up. It is a very big issue.   

KJ: Tell me more about the Yaw Shin Leong case?

GMS: In 2001, JBJ [J.B. Jeyaretnam] left, LTK had no choice but to take on people he barely knew but they were tigers, highly motivated people, they speak their own minds. We argue a lot, we had a clash of ideas, we are fighters. After 2006, LTK thought he may be out of control because of our team of fighters. We had a certain standing. We revived the party.

When it comes to YSL, the information was deliberately leaked about his affairs. In fact, I also think that the information [leak] was deliberate, not PAP but the WP.

[Leon] Perera has much better parliament speeches even than Pritam. He has a much better skill in organization. Pritam was with the army, it is sad that when you feel you are unable to manage people, he always feels that he is sharper than you, eventually they will lose one way or the other. You must maintain your relevance by eliminating people who are more vocal than you or not loyal to you.

So, if you look at the new WP, there is nothing exciting or sharp. So, all the strong guys naturally left. I think that there is something wrong with their system. A good leader may not be the smartest or greatest person in the organization, but he must manage that who are stronger than him. We are lacking this in WP.? 

KJ: Was Pritam the wrong choice as successor in your view? 

GMS: Pritam was the wrong choice, … definitely.   

GMS: After the CEC meeting, LTK was driving me back. I asked LTK why he did not appoint YSL. He said he annulled his first marriage because he had an affair. LTK knows about that. But he still stood in Hougang. Later on, all the information came out about his adultery. He did it. 

KJ: Do you think the punishment was too harsh?

GMS: When anybody has a personal relationship issue like this, the most important thing is his wife forgives him. It’s not up to us to judge. He did not resign. He was OK for the party to sack him. I am very puzzled by all this happening. You put someone in an important constituency when you have full knowledge of his past. When the shit hit the fan, you threw him under the bus. This changed the way I view the party. Look at the totality, look at how you treated Eric Tan, look at how you treated Shin Leong, I’m shocked really. It shows there is something very wrong with the culture. This will deter WP from rising up. You will end up with MPs who are mediocre. If you are fighting a strong opposition, you must put in the right people. They may win under the brand of WP, but how long can they sustain that? 

KJ: How is YSL remembered today?

GMS: YSL- he is basically forgotten.  

KJ: Will you be involved in politics?

GMS: I have actually given up on politics in Singapore. It is about societal, the cultural mindset. We have too many new citizens who don’t know the past- it is part of the problem of globalization. It is sad, there is nothing we can do, I’ve done my part, so be it. To progress, you need a situation which can be sustainable in the long term. It is like a wayang [puppet] show. No-one talks about serious issues anymore. No-one talks about how politics impacts.

We are in the midst of an east-west conflict, US-China. We have so many people becoming citizens. Where there is a global political system, where do we start in a global context? With the new citizens, if India and China have a war, what will happen then? The dynamics are quite serious in this era. Nobody dares to talk about that, because the new citizens are their potential voters. We need to address this situation as a nation. The citizenship should not be given up that easily. If you have 40-50% of people that don’t share the cultural roots or the national concern of the land, you are going to be in trouble. These are issues nobody wants to talk about. It’s a very practical issue in advance of what might happen.

Now we know the motive for this climate change [agenda] is not as scientifically-based as we think. The weather has been changing for hundreds of years, but is it really due to the carbon in the atmosphere?

My party is the only party talking about carbon tax and the link to climate change. We are the only ones talking about nuclear power. We might wait a bit longer for the safer technology of nuclear fusion to come.

The voters are not ready for such policy issues. They like branding, they are more influenced by branding. They don’t have time to look at party policies, it’s very different from England. 

KJ: You came very close that year, 2011 (in Tampines and Marine Parade). 

GMS: It’s OK, but we are not at the right place at the right time with the voters. I want to walk away from this politicized branding, but to focus on issues which are very concerning. There are issues that are very concerning for a small country like Singapore. If we do not protect the family unit, we will not have more babies. Why are people not giving birth? It is partly cultural and partly cost-of-living. 

KJ: Do you have sadness or regret that your vote share is not high with PPP?

GMS: We are failing in that sense, but no regrets at that. I am an activist more than a politician. I think the way forward we still need a third force.

KJ: SDP?

GMS: The issue with SDP is continuity. Chee is coming up to 70, but there is no designated successor. They have been heavily infiltrated in the past, so he needed to protect himself and his party. In terms of policy perspective, SDP has a stronger policy set than WP. That is why we say WP is Team B, they have PAP policy, take a bit, add a bit.  SDP has a very clear policy perspective. At least they try to stand on their own, they have a certain ideology.

KJ: What about NSP- it has fallen a long way since the 2011 GE?

GMS: NSP- I thought Nicole Seah and Tony Tan could bring glory to NSP, but I was wrong. They fought among themselves, that’s the issue, and it just fell apart. When I leave, they fought against me. After I left, they fought among themselves. It’s a very human thing, when you look at human psychology. We might have to wait for another 20 years to see the real democratic progress in the system. In fact, 20 years is to be very optimistic. Hopefully, we will not be thrown into chaos. If you do a Malaysia-Singapore analysis, you will see Malaysian politicians have more EQ and that will bring you a lot of progress. If Anwar does another term, I think that Malaysia may surpass Singapore. 

KJ: Chee has been able to improve his vote percentage in recent years. 

GMS: The reason why Chee got a better show was because of geographical. Most new citizens prefer the east and the west. The west is mostly Malaysian Chinese (who have residency). They stay there because of Tuas and to be near to home, the causeway. The east is mostly new migrants. Sembawang up north is the real Singaporeans who are up there because it is cheaper. Sembawang has a younger population. Last time in Sembawang, it is Chinese gangs and Indian gangs that are there, they support PAP. Now things are changing, mostly Singapore-born are moving to the new-built flats. That makes the change. It is the same with Punggol- more of the local youngsters reside there. That’s why the WP could win it. I do not have the stats about how people move around.

KJ: Why is the west so strong for PAP?

GMS: Malaysian Chinese and it’s also gangland. The biggest secret society gang is in Jurong, it’s been incorporated into the grassroots. You have to understand how the gangs worked- it was to protect their village. The PAP did not destroy the gangs but co-opted them. It used to be Barisan Sosialis. In general, if you have younger people, the land is more fertile for the opposition. When you get older you tend to be more conservative. The new citizens in Punggol, Sembawang, they will be ready for a change. The WP [this should read SDP if we are referring to the 2025 general election] did badly in Bukit Panjang; it is infested by new citizens. You will understand why geographic distribution of citizens matters.

I am not so optimistic in the future because we have so many new citizens. The opposition parties have to bring them in. New migrants from the big countries- India, China- they keep to themselves. You see the WhatsApp groups. The Chinese are very cosy in their own communities. They are less close to the locals who are English-speaking. It would be very difficult for the opposition to penetrate them. The PAP is effective because there are benefits in joining the grassroots. In parts of the grassroots, the new citizens are taking over. Their votes may actually increase.

One of the critical mistakes is when Lawrence Wong talked about the Chinese versus Japanese.  That actually created a fire among the new migrants. That’s partly why I see the new migrants will have such an impact on the social fabric. Now they are clamping down on some websites in case they are foreign actors trying to influence local politics, but most are actually Chinese-based. There is no law against foreigners commenting on politics.

China has a unification department where they go around the world to engage all Chinese to support the One China policy. The unification group is active in Singapore.  They are doing all the cultural things. When there are issues that touch on the One China policy, they will be activated. 

KJ: Do you think that the west can be won by the opposition? 

GMS: No [laughs and shakes his head]. The WP does not even go to the west to sell Hammers anymore because we know the stats.

The new citizens will become restless. When they see the opportunities in their original countries, they may go back. In 2011, I was one of the first to complain about the new citizens.

*****THE END*****

Footnote 1: I use the word ‘stagnant’ to describe the WP, GMS agrees.

NEWS: Help Jeanne Ten Fund Court Challenge Against NUS for Wrongful Denial of Master Degree.

Left to Right: Dan De Costa, Khush Chopra, Jeanne Ten, and Kieran James, Joo Chiat Road, May 2019.

Dear friends,

Legal Battle with NUS – For the past 14 years, I have fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for the wrongful denial of my Master’s Degree. In 2012, I sued the university as a last resort. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal.

Two years ago, donations from the public enabled me to pay a portion of the $11,000 of court hearing fee and send my case to trial instead of being thrown out by Court. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal.

To recap, here below is a brief summary of the past 14 years in which I had fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for wrongfully denying my MA degree, the sabotage of my PhD programme that I was then enrolled in in 2006, which cost me loss of career opportunities and loss of income. NUS destroyed my career.

In September 2006, NUS (National University of Singapore) expelled me from the university after refusing to confer me my Master of Arts Degree in retaliation for my whistle-blowing about misconduct by a professor at NUS, and my whistle-blowing about the subsequent cover-up. As a result of this expulsion by NUS, I had to leave a PhD course that I had already started in the United States. This destroyed my chances of pursuing a career in my field of expertise.

In August 2012, I was left with no other option except to turn to the courts to sue NUS, after two different NUS university presidents and the Ministry of Education all failed to help me despite my desperate appeals for help. If I didn’t start the lawsuit against NUS by August 2012, my case would have been “time-barred” which means that I would have passed the deadline to take legal action.

NUS should have properly admitted its guilt, offered to make amends to me, and punished the wrongdoers. Instead, NUS spent more than $700,000 of public funds to hire lawyers to fight me every step of the way and protect the wrongdoers from the punishment they deserved. NUS fiercely resisted discovery of relevant documents, thereby dragging out the lawsuit and making it very costly for me. NUS could afford to use these attrition tactics against me, because NUS can use public funds (taxpayers’ dollars) to fight me in court. I ran out of money half-way through this lawsuit and had to resort to borrowing. NUS even tried to apply to Court to bankrupt me in 2015.

In July 2017, I went public to raise funds for my legal fees after NUS successfully got the Court to issue me two ultimatums (Unless Orders) – to pay $11,000 within three days, failing which my legal case would be thrown out of court. By borrowing money and crowdfunding, I was able to raise the funds to send the case to trial.

In August 2017, the public trial of my case began in the High Court. The trial spanned a total of nine days from August 2017 to November 2017. I blogged about my 9-day trial and legal updates here.

In July 2018, the Court delivered its decision – I lost all my legal claims against NUS. This was despite the High Court finding that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing against me (see the quotations from the High Court’s written judgment below).

On 26 July 2019, the Court delivered its decision on costs – the High Court ordered me to pay $169,748.77 to NUS for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). NUS originally claimed $698,940.11 in legal costs and disbursements for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). This means that NUS claims that it spent at least $698,940.11 paying its lawyers from Drew & Napier to fight me in Court. Since NUS is a “public body” this money must have come from the taxpayers’ dollars.

I don’t know whether if NUS will appeal the cost award, given that the Court has awarded NUS less than a quarter of what NUS has claimed that it had spent in legal costs. Both sides have until 26 August 2019 to file a “Notice of Appeal.” NUS may also choose to bankrupt me as NUS has tried once in 2015 to enforce the cost orders made by Court. This is what NUS does to a student who has refused to allow NUS to cover up misconduct of one of its faculty members against the student.

Having considered the matter thoroughly, I have decided to appeal the High Court’s decision on costs, as well as the High Court’s substantive judgment, to the Court of Appeal; but the problem is that, in Singapore, if you want to appeal to the Court of Appeal, you have to pay $20,000 for “Security for Costs.” If you can’t afford to pay the $20,000, then the Court will not allow you to appeal. The Security for Costs is for the opposing party, which is NUS in my case, and the Security for Costs is separate from the thousands of dollars of court filing fees to be paid to the Court.

As far as I know, the Malaysian Court and the British Courts do not require (or require only minimal amounts for) this sort of security deposit. However, this is, sadly, the current position in Singapore.

Now, in August 2019, I am resorting to crowdfunding again to raise $20,000 Security for Costs which is for the benefit of NUS, before the Court of Appeal would accept my application to hear my appeal.

At the present moment, I have about 2 weeks to raise the $20,000 to appeal the Court’s decisions. I believe I have an arguable case, in fact a strong case, but I don’t have the sum of $20,000. I need to reach the target sum by 22 August 2019 (and file the Notice of Appeal latest by 26 August 2019).

Appealing to the Court of Appeal is probably the only way that I can avoid bankruptcy – or, at the very least, it is certainly the only way that I can possibly avoid a crushing financial burden in the form of the unfair costs order.

Why do I want to appeal?

Some people have asked me to give up taking NUS to the courts because they feel that I can never win a lawsuit against a Singapore public/government institution in Singapore. However, I will still go ahead with the appeal because I believe I have a strong case before the Court of Appeal.

The High Court judgment has already exposed and confirmed wrongdoing by NUS officers.

In the July 2018 written judgment, the High Court actually found NUS to be guilty of wrongdoing in the main facts of my case. (See the elaboration on this point in the next section below.) But the High Court did not find NUS to be guilty of “malice” or “deliberate” acts and, hence, the High Court did not hold NUS liable to me for expelling me from the university and destroying my career, despite the overwhelming documentary evidence that proves that the wrongful actions that NUS took against me were intentional, deliberate, premediated and carefully planned and executed by numerous high-ranking NUS officers.

In my case against NUS, NUS has consistently taken the legal position that I did not complete the requirements that were necessary for NUS to award me my Master’s degree. This is a lame excuse and a red herring. The fact is that I had successfully completed all of the requirements for my graduation and for the award of my Master’s Degree, including researching and writing a book-length Master’s thesis, and I had submitted the final version of my thesis to NUS on the deadline stipulated by NUS. The documentary evidence of letters and internal emails written by NUS officers, clearly prove that the real reason why NUS expelled me and denied me the award of my Master’s degree, was that I refused to comply with demands that I drop my complaints about a professor’s misconduct (my thesis Supervisor), even after NUS sent me a letter that threatened me with expulsion if I refused to comply with the improper demands.

On 13 May 2019, during the court hearing on Costs, the lawyer for NUS, in trying to convince the High Court judge to order me to pay NUS even more costs, told the judge that NUS had made an offer to me to award me my Master’s degree in 2017. (Refer to an extract of the Court Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 below.)

In other words, NUS has finally (in effect) admitted in Court in 2019 that it had withheld my MA degree despite the fact that I had already earned the degree in 2006!

The High Court judgment appears to be that what NUS did to me is wrongful but NUS is not legally liable to me in the eyes of the law. With all due respect to the High Court, this is absolutely absurd. I will try to ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the costs order. The actions of NUS are “disgraceful” and deserving of “moral condemnation.”

I filed my Notice of Appeal to appeal the High Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2018, which was before the deadline; but, the Court has unjustly denied me my legal right to appeal, despite the fact that the right to appeal is supposedly a legal right that belongs to every Singaporean. The Court denied me my legal right to appeal on the grounds that I was unable to pay the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” for the appeal. Now that the High Court has issued a decision on costs, I have another opportunity to be heard by the Court of Appeal, but first I have to raise the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” before the deadline.

Your donation will help me to ask the Court of Appeal to hear my appeal of the High Court’s judgment, amongst other issues including the issue on costs.

Please donate generously to my crowdfunding appeal, so that my case can be heard in the Court of Appeal. Thank you.

For those of you who are still interested in the details of my case after reading this far, you can continue reading on my blog.

Please donate to my crowdfunding appeal.

Paypal tljvnus@gmail.com; PayLah! 93884036; Bank POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0; Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, DBS Bank Pte Ltd, 12 Marina Boulevard, DBS Asia Central, Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3, Singapore 018982, Singapore; Bank swift code: DBSSSGSG; Branch code: 081.
Credit Card: https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/