Saturday, February 25, 2012

Does Threat of Defamation Lawsuit Scare and Silence?

Apart from apologies and deletions, are there not going to be noises in Singapore's cyber cowboy town?

With three threats and demands (Shanmugum, Lee & Lee) coming from legal firms so soon one after another, will alternative news soon sound like mainstream media? Will Singaporean bloggers who write their thoughts against the grain walk into the sunset and say, "Goodbye freedom of speech. Goodbye unjust world." Would they shrivel up and die? I doubt so!

By reading Lucky Tan's "Threats of Defamation Lawsuits : Not a way to win over netizens...." [Link], I think Lucky may have spoken for many Singaporean minds when he compared Barack Obama against Lee Hsien Loong. No, not the comparison of salary, which has become pretty stale, but character! Of one who admitted, "I screwed up!" [Video Link from previous blog] and of another who complained that he should have more time to 'buy and fix' [Video Link from previous blog].

In "An Open Challenge to Lee Hsien Loong" [Link], I'm energised by the wisdom and brilliance of writer of "Under The Willow Tree". While others may feel that it is silly, I would strongly encourage PM Lee to take up this challenge. It will be the most honourable thing to to do if he is serious about putting an end to all the insinuations and rumours of nepotism. It would, once and for all, put the rumour mongers to silence forever!

PM Lee has missed many opportunities to act on what he preached. If an open and inclusive society where trust, care, openness and transparency is what he sincerely wants in Singapore, he must step up to the plate and do what's right for the nation. We don't want a lame Prime Minister. We want one who has the gumption to do right when rightfully and reasonably challenged.

In the same way that Workers' Party has been challenged by the msm to come clean on the saga of Yaw Shin Leong, I, as a citizen of Singapore, seek the PM's sense of fairplay to come clean on this issue without further threat of defamation charges. In fact, I do not take "An Open Challenge to Lee Hsien Loong" as a challenge. I take it as a request from a blogger who is, like me, sick and tired of the arrogance of the powerful who use their riches to engage lawyers to fighten and gag the views and voices of those who question to find the truth.

video
feedmetothefish



Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Are We There Yet?

I can't help noticing the msm and PAP politicians doing their best to discredit Yaw Shin Leong and Workers' Party. Are they there yet? Is enough, enough?
video

video

The last salvo came from Ho Kah Leong, a former PAP MP and senior parliamentary secretary. [Link]

The response from Low Thia Khiang to Ho Kah Leong makes PAP look real bad. It is embarrassing for the ruling party to be caught with its pants down. It's worthwhile to note that:
  • If Low Thia Khiang was wrong in his judgement of character in selecting Yaw Shin Leong as a MP, I think Lee Kuan Yew did worse, much worse. In PAP's 'stringent selection criteria for its candidates' how on earth did we end up with cases involving Teh Cheang Wan (Minister for National Development of 80's); Wee Toon Boon (Minister of State for Environment of 70's) and Tan Kia Gan (Minister for National Development of 60's).
  • If Low Thia Khiang is considered irresponsible and has "let down the voters in Hougang" by calling for a by-election in Hougang, then the 1992 by-election played out in Marine Parade GRC must make Goh Chok Tong a more deplorable person for "letting down" many more voters in Marine Parade GRC. 
  • The perpetual complaint of Law Shin Leong's expulsion being 'hasty and careless' should be put to rest since WP has already explained that Yaw's expulsion was due to his continued refusal to present himself to the CEC to clear the air.
PAP and msm has scraped hard to discredit Yaw and WP. The more they try, the more they hurt their credibility. "Come clean"? Just how clean does Khaw Boon Wan and PAP want WP to come? If PAP and the msm continue to carelessly throw stones, their glass houses together with their credibility and respect will soon turn to smithereens.

I hope the latest announcement by the Speaker [Link] and his coming revelation on Tuesday will lead us to some fresh air.

Meanwhile, let's hope that the paparazzi, reporters and journalists will be kind to Yaw Shin Leong's wife. Give the poor lady a break. 

feedmetothefish

Talking about coming clean, I'm shocked to read this at CNA Forum [Link]. I wonder if it came from a Hollywood scriptwriter.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Is Our CPF Broke?

I wrote recently, "No Hair but Got Heart" [Link]. Without going through the details of the schemes, I complimented Tharman Shamugaratnam for his concern and kindness for the poor, the disabled and the old after his 2012 Budget speech.

Now I'm having second thoughts. I may have been wrong. Is his heart where it is supposed to be?

While going through the details provided by Leong Sze Hian of TOC, I realised that I may have been suckered and conned . . . hook, line and sinker!

From Leong Sze Hian in italic:
A Silver Housing Bonus of $20,000 will be introduced whereby, the "Government will provide $15,000 in cash and $5,000 to the CPF accounts. To benefit from the scheme, the homeowners will use the proceeds from the sale of their previous home to top up their CPF savings up to the prevailing Minimum Sum. All amounts above the Minimum Sum can be withdrawn in cash", and the Government expects many to be able to do so.
The Finance Minister in unveiling Budget 2012, goes on to say, "Suppose we have a retiree couple who each had $10,000 set aside in their Retirement Accounts when they turned 55. They decide to move from a 3-room flat to a Studio Apartment. That gives them net proceeds of $250,000. The proceeds will go into their CPF LIFE. But because they will now exceed the Minimum Sum, they take out $8,000 in cash. Together with the $15,000 cash from the Silver Housing Bonus, they get $23,000 in total. Most important, they also get a much bigger income for life from CPF LIFE – an additional $1,200 per month." [Link]


From the above, I cannot help but think that Tharman's objective may be more than helping the poor 55-year-old couple! Pardon my being slow in mathematics but this is what I understand from the "Silver Housing Bonus":

  1. A retiree couple sells their 3 room flat, buys a studio apartment and is richer by $250,000
  2. However, CPF Minimum Sum "forfeits" $242,000 from the sales proceeds of $250,000
  3. The couple ends up with a cash balance of $8000 and is entitled to a "Silver Housing Bonus" of $15,000 cash. Total of $23,000 cash in hand.
  4. $242,000 will not be paid to them until they are 65, in drips and drabs, through CPF Life, instead of one lump sum.
Imagine, someone coming to offer you $23,000 with the evil intention to fleece you off $242,000! Damned! Not unlike the "Get Rich Quick" scams you hear so often!

Just who benefits from this 'Silver Housing Bonus' transaction? In one fell swoop, CPF gets a windfall of $242,000!  (For Temasek and/or GIC to mess with?)

While Bernard Madoff preyed on the rich in his Ponzi scheme, it is a disgrace for CPF to prey on the relatively poor and old of Singapore. 

I am concerned. So should all Singaporeans. Is Our CPF Broke? If there is enough money to pay out to CPF members, why are there so many fanciful schemes to delay payment and disgraceful ways to add on to the Fund?
  • Why from full payback with interest at age 55 to the current Shameful Schemes?
  • Why from No Minimum Sum to $80,000 in 2003 to $131,000 Minimum Sum in 2012?
  • Why from "don't know how much" to the $36,000 Medisave Account today?
  • Why must a mandatory Admin Fee be paid to CPF to use your Medisave if you are sick?
Why? 

I cannot blame those who are comfortably off to be not too concerned about the CPF. In fact, the 2.5% interest they get is better than what they get from the bank. However, for those old folks with no spare cash and living from hand to mouth, the delay in getting one's hard earned CPF can lead to depression and suicide. It is a joke that Singapore pays us only 2.5% on our CPF while our Malaysian neighbours get 6% interest per annum! [Link]

'What I don't have, I can't give!' (Stephen Covey?) If I do not have enough to barely survive for today, just how the fook am I going to give. Especially to CPF! 

And I thought Tharman got heart!

Regardless of age, we live, we learn.

feedmetothefish



The Value Of A Rumour and The Timbre of The Man

The above picture is extracted from TOC [Link] showing the media's stakeout at Yaw Shin Leong's house. If the picture above is what paparazzi is about in Singapore, my question is: Why are paparazzi, reporters and journalists of Singapore so selective of their preys? Why some get it and some don't?

After reading K Shamugum's letter to Alex Au through his lawyers [Link], I'm amazed that the newsmakers in msm are sitting pretty on their bottoms and not following up on the lead. If they were  responsible and credible newshounds, one would expect them to leave no stones unturned to go to the bottom of the story - to find out why the Law and Foreign Minister of Singapore did what he did.

The inactivity and silence from the msm on this juicy subject shows the incredible unequal value of rumours. Why would a certain rumour be so orgasmic that paparazzi, reporters and journalists would spare no effort to nail the truth? Why would another rumour be so flaccid that no paparazzi, reporters and journalists would give a damn?

Why? Could it be 'My boss told me not to play with fire and live dangerously'? Could it be self preservation? Could it be lack of integrity? Could it be Kiasu? Kiasi? Kia Chenghu?

I don't know.

You don't know.

Only the paparazzi, reporters and journalists know.

I remember during the 60's in Singapore, "Rumours are dangerous! Don't be a rumour monger!" was announced over the radio and flashed in black and white TV so very often. Geez, I can't exactly recall what it was about. It could be during the racial riots or the Indonesian confrontation. (I would appreciate if those who remember can help me out here by your comments.)

Anyway,  so why some get it and some don't? Why some get hounded like Yaw Shin Leong while others don't?  It may boil down to my personal adage that 'Power and money can cover and rid inconveniences and bad news'.

Would anybody agree that the sky in Singapore will fall should the Chua sisters follow up on why K Shanmugum did what he did through Allen&Gledhill?

Have a good week ahead!

feedmetothefish







Saturday, February 18, 2012

No Hair but Got Heart?



As with any organisations, there are nice blokes and there are arrogant pricks. Yes, government leaders who, when opening their mouths, prick you no end with their insolent 'see-you-no-up-but-talk-you-down-like-you-are-an-idiot' remarks. 

So are there honestly sincere, good and humble leaders in PAP? I bet there are. If not, we are doomed! Among the ministers, I perceive Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam to be one. I hope he stays one.

In his recent 2012 Budget Speech, he mentioned of "A Fair and Inclusive Society" where, "For older Singaporeans, including those in the middle-income group, we will introduce a comprehensive set of measures to help you work, to build up your savings, and to stay healthy and have a greater sense of security in retirement.

For Singaporeans with disabilities, we will do more to help you maximise your potential at each stage of life – in early childhood, in school, and as adults, to work and to be cared for.

For lower-income Singaporeans, we will do more to support your children’s education, and help you acquire skills as adults, hold good jobs and improve your incomes over time. We will also introduce a new and permanent feature in our tax system: GST Vouchers, which will provide continuing assurance of a fair system of taxes and benefits." [Link]

I take the Finance and Deputy Prime Minister at his words and I sincerely hope his colleagues responsible at other ministries will live up to his pledge, work at it and not treat it as another 'aspiration' [Link]. Hopefully not another NATO! (No Action Talk Only)

It is good to know that Tharman is aware that there are the old, poor and disabled in Singapore. Unlike some wise men who deny their existence by saying "You go down New York, Broadway. You will see the beggars, people of the streets...Where are the beggars in Singapore? Show me." or "There are no homeless, destitute or starving people [in Singapore]… Poverty has been eradicated." [Link],  To be poor, old and disabled is 'no fun' [Link] but to be insulted or even worse, denied one's deprived existence by the hoity toity of the rich, famous and powerful is disgraceful!.

I believe that like a chain, a country is only as strong, as happy or as prosperous as its weakest link. Self-praise by Singaporeans (especially PAP leaders and cronies) of being a first world country doesn't mean squat if the disadvantaged are not cared for or helped with subsistence and kindness. Though the details of the assistance have yet to hit me, I'm happy that the heart of Tharman shines like his pate!

It is disappointing that some ministers whom I respected and thought were good and sincere have through time proven to be trash. (Some have deservedly ended up in the dustbin while others are still thrashing around without any sense of shame). I'm not much of a PAP fan, but I believe fair is fair and I write with heart. Where Tharman is concerned, he's got not much hair, but he's got heart!

Sir, just don't ever break my heart by making silly comments that 'Khaw Peh Khaw Bu'!
Btw, the great-grandma of my grand daughter smokes 'ang hoon' and she isn't too pleased with your 'ang hoon' tax ;)

feedmetothefish

'Khaw Peh Khaw Bu' = Cry Father Cry Mother (make unnecessary noise, complain, throw tantrum?)
'ang hoon' = red tobacco leaves (a cheaper form of smoking where one rolls one's own) 


Friday, February 17, 2012

So Much Sex and So Little Babies

Ever wonder why there is so much bonking and so little babies in Singapore?

If the alleged fornications of the following were true, can Lee Hsien Loong's begging for more Singapore babies every year be met if they do it differently?
  1. Soon to be Former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong alleged extra-marital bonking
  2. Former Chief of Singapore Civil Defence Force, Peter Lim's alleged corrupt bonking
  3. Former Chief of Central Narcotics Bureau, Ng Boon Gay's alleged corrupt bonking
  4. 80 professionals and civil servants (including a top primary school principal) allegedly listed as clients of an internet prostitution ring who now are losing sleep over their libido and K-Bonking
Jokes aside. Let's seriously consider why Singaporeans do not wish to replace themselves with children of their own.

High Cost:
In terms of money, it is getting very costly to have a baby in Singapore. It gets worse when you have to provide them a livelihood and education while they grow up. The labour pain happens not only during delivery of the baby but lasts for 20 years or more. 
  • Delivery Cost: It can go by the thousands of dollars even at KK Hospital.
  • Food Cost: Starts with breast's followed by formula milk, followed by regular food when they grow up.
  • Attire Cost: Starts with diapers (nappies) followed by growing up clothes which can kill when the kids tell you they need stuff like Nike, Adidas etc. Worse, they may ask for 'lagi atas' brands!
  • Education Cost: From Nursery School to Tertiary Education. Just take a look at the cost alone at tertiary level of a 4 year Business Program:
    SGD $
    Singapore
    Australia
    USA
    UK
    Tuition Fees
    $24,440
    $144,000
    $196,000
    $180,000
    Living Cost
    $33,000
    $75,400
    $92,800
    $84,000
    Total Cost
    $57,740
    $219,400
    $288,800
    $264,000
    Let us assume an inflation rate of just 3% annually for the next 18 years
    SGD $
    Singapore
    Australia
    USA
    UK
    Tuition Fees
    $24,440
    $144,000
    $196,000
    $180,000
    Tuition Fees inflation
    $41,604
    $245,150
    $333,676
    $306,438
    Living Cost
    $33,000
    $75,400
    $92,800
    $84,000
    Living Cost inflation
    $56,180
    $128,363
    $157,985
    $143,004
    Total Cost @ inflation
    $97,784
    $373,513
    $491,661
    $449,442
(Source: Cost of basic business degree in Singapore. (www.nus.edu.sg), Cost of basic business degree in UK, US and Australia (TODAY, 4 October 2005), myCPF http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/my-cpf/have-child/HC5.htm)
  • Transport Cost: Starts with the school bus to nursery school and adult fare (sorry no discount) for polytechnic and local university students, not forgetting air fares if your kid can't qualify for local U but need a tertiary education overseas.
  • Enrichment Cost: Apart from paying for basic education, enrichment classes is going to cost a bomb, depending on what you go for. Try Learning Lab, anyone?
  • Miscellaneous Cost: A computer, a notebook, an ipad and, of course, a smartphone is a must if you want your kid to survive. If a child is a hobbyist, artist and/or active sports person, additional expenses for mountain bike, piano and other sports equipment goes with the territory.
With the ever increasing cost of living - hike in food prices, transportation and the latest announcement of increase in Polytechnics and University fees, it can be scary for average earning couples to contemplate procreating.

Happiness
Apart from the material point of view, young couples are concerned about the 'culture' (or lack of it) in Singapore. The 'kiasu', 'kiasi', 'kia bo lui' and 'kia chenghu' mindset inculcated by the power that is, for the past 40 years, to consolidate their power is not helping young couples to celebrate life! The constant threats [Link] and lack of democratic freedom make breathing difficult for vocal concerned Singaporeans. This has created much unhappiness. If they are not happy, can we blame them for not  creating another life to suffer the misery of being a Singaporean? 

Political Leadership:
The latest response to the Yaw Shin Leong's expulsion from Workers' Party by The Chairman and Secretary-General of PAP may be another reason why Singaporeans aren't bonking to have babies. Do you want your child to listen to the following crap?



video
The face tells . . . 

SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said there is no fixed time within which he must call a by-election.
Responding to media queries over the Workers' Party's expulsion of its MP for Hougang, Yaw Shin Leong, Mr Lee said an election is a very serious matter and noted that Singapore just had a General Election less than a year ago. "Now, the Hougang SMC is vacant, as a result of what Mr Yaw Shin Leong has done, and the way the WP has handled the matter". He said that "the WP has let down the voters of Hougang".
On whether a by-election in Hougang will be held, and the timing, Mr Lee said he "will consider the matter carefully". He added that "there are many other issues on the national agenda right now". [Link]


We pay $2.2million (or more, who knows?) to one who who cannot handle a by election because of "many other issues on the national agenda right now"? It is a fooking shame that a PM has to handle such nitty-gritty instead of delegating it to Yammy or someone else in the Election Department. Yes, Singaporeans are ashamed to have their offspring see such "buying and fixing" foot-in-mouth disease! That't why they are not reproducing.

This is worse!
video
To come clean, I think the Chairman of PAP needs to to let us know why Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim were relieved of their ministerial portfolios after they were voted into Parliament in May 2011. Based on Khaw's whiter than white 'come (cum) cleanliness', why are such ex-ministers seldom seen or heard in the parliamentary proceedings for the past 9 months? Getting 'gaji buta' as MP's? I think the people has been misled by the People Action Party!

Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Kiang of WP has come clean with the fact that Yaw Shin Leong, though given the chance,  did not bother to share with his party when given the opportunity to reveal the truth of the matter. The delay by WP to reveal their stance, compared to the investigation of other cases like Kong Hee or other top civil servants, if to be faulted, must be weighted fairly. Come clean? Yes, please do! We are waiting!

Khaw said that in the political arena one's private life becomes public and one loses all privacy? Now I know why the PAP is suffering in its recruitment drive for new candidates. Does it become so public that one has to strip oneself to show the 'zipper' on one's chest to show one has gone through the trial by fire of a CABG (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft) surgery?  With due respect to Minister Khaw, I beg him to look within himself and his party before spouting crap that may be detrimental to his personal health and that of his party. Having a bypass does not anoint one to be wiser and more righteous than others.

Khaw bragged about his $8 bypass operation. He almost cried and seek sympathy votes for his blistered feet and heart in an 'emo show' [Link] which sadly BG Tan Chuan-Jin picked up to justify his million dollar salary with the 'sacrifice' crap. [Link]

With all the fooking wayangs that's been demonstrated thus far, can we blame Singaporeans for not fooking to have more babies?

Too bad that there's so much sex and so little babies in Singapore!

feedmetothefish

Note:
'lagi atas' = higher class (Malay)
'kiasu' = fear of loss (Hokkien)
'kiasi' = fear of death (Hokkien)
'kia bo lui' = fear of no money (Hokkien)
'kia chenghu' = fear of PAP government (Hokkien)
'gaji buta" = blind salary (Malay)










Wednesday, February 15, 2012

This Party Does Right!

Sometimes something done by someone gives you a sense of hope and makes you feel good.

In Singapore where the majority is cultured upon a 'kiasi', 'kiasu' and 'me-first-and-fook-the-rest' mentality, it is a breath of fresh air to see politicians putting their money where the mouth is. To hear WP's Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang announced the expulsion of Yaw Shin Leong is to know that there is hope yet for Singapore! As a Singaporean old enough to sing God Save The Queen, Negara Ku and Majulah Singapura as national anthem, I feel grateful to know that values such truth, integrity, accountability and transparency is worth more, much more than a parliamentary seat. It bodes well for our future. For Workers' Party to sacrifice a seat in parliament to prove that blue is whiter than white is an act worthy of my respect.

Some may feel that expelling Yaw is just a gamesmanship by WP. It is only temporarily vacating the seat in Hougang as WP is likely to win again? I am not too sure. Pardon my naivety, but can the ruling party with its parliamentary majority prevent a by election like they did in 2008 when Dr Ong Chit Chung, a Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC died? What if there is a 3 or 4 corner fight which may be detrimental to WP in retaining the Hougang seat? My gut feel is WP risks the loss of a MP to continue their journey "Towards A First World Parliament" and be upfront in their dealing with Singaporeans, especially residents of Hougang. For that, they win my vote!

"WP believes strongly in transparency and accountability, and expects no less from our party members, especially our Members of Parliament.


Shin Leong has been accused of several indiscretions in his private life. By continuing not to account to the Party and the people, especially the residents of Hougang, he has broken the faith, trust and expectations of the Party and People."  [Link]

To others who figure that WP has done too little too late, I think everyone deserves the right to have his/her opinion, to bitch and to blog. To me,  Workers' Party does right (though the humane side of me sympathise with Yaw for losing his job) and for that:

"Baris Sedia! Hormat Parti Perkerja Perkerja, HORMAT!"

"Parade Attention! Salute Workers' Party, SALUTE!"

This calls for a celebration!

feedmetothefish

     

I Salute their Guts! Would You Have Done What They Did?

Further to my previous post [Link] on the beating that Mr Paul Liew and Mr Wong Xiong received from the bullying white trash and the disastrous performance by our 'home protectors", I sincerely hope that some way, somehow we can "take care of our own".
video
[Link]
A crazy thought came to mind. Maybe, every able-bodied Singaporean who is physically and mentally fit should be trained to be strong enough to take care of oneself and our own when faced off with a bully. With the latest that I read on taxpayers' money that will be spent on Sports and Fitness by MCYS "Kee Chiu Chan", I would strongly encourage that every school kid picks up a form of self-defence like 'Aikido' [Art of Love/Unite Chi (Energy)], Wing Chun, Bersilat, Kalaripayattu or any other martial arts to "take care of our own" and take on the bullies! We are getting soft. Unless we buck up, we will have more bullies asking, "Whose your daddy?" after being brutally assaulted for no rhyme or reason!

Bruce Springsteen's latest release may just inspire us Singaporeans commoners to take care of ourself and our own; the same way Mr Wong and Mr Liew took care of Mr Tan, the taxi driver. Yes, the same spirit that was shown by Bruce Lee that we saw in the "Big Boss" and "Fist Of Fury" when he was bullied and treated like dirt!

True, there are many Kiasu (afraid to lose) and the Kiasi (afraid to die) Singaporeans in our mist but with the valour and care shown by Mr Wong and Mr Liew on the hapless taxi driver, I think there is hope yet for Singapore! They more than "Stand Up for Singapore". They endangered their lives to protect a fellow Singaporean.

Instead of respecting Mr Wong and Mr Liew for their guts in saving another person and doing what's right in hauling in the perpetrators to justice as soon as possible, the police did an 'epic fail' in delaying their investigations and the judiciary did a 'kangaroo' when the perps jumped bail!

It is stupid for the government to ignore this incident. There has been so much fart on "inclusive society", "one nation, people,one Singapore". It will be an opportunity lost if the silly government does not acknowledge, comment or highlight the good deed done by Mr Liew and Mr Wong.

If the Home Minister (past and/or present) or his subordinate is reading this, I hope he does not come up with an half-arse defence for the fookup done by SPF. He would garner more respect if he'd just bite the bullet, admit to the cockup and offer an official commendation for meritorious action for the deeds done by Mr Wong and Mr Liew.

Being verbally and physically bullied by foreign trash is abhorrent but to be ignored, bullied and treated like trash by your own leaders is  . . .

Sick?

feedmetothefish







Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Like American Express Advertisement, PAP MP Has Its Privileges

Bullies!
I read this article from Publichouse [Link] of a Mr Paul Liew and Mr Wong Xiong trying to save a taxi uncle, Mr Tan  from being assaulted by a group of angmo (filthy bullying white trash). In doing what is right and honourable, they too were badly beaten up by the same white drunken sons of whatyouliketocall. [Mr Liew's picture from Publichouse is on the left.]

Irresponsible police officers!
Officers in Singapore Police Force are supposed to protect us from harm and to do justice right. The crap that Mr Liew and Mr Wong received in their dealing with the police shows service from the SPF leaves much to be desired. I do not understand why the police were so fast and efficient when PAP Seng Han Thong was set on fire. They were also very quick in their investigations and arrests when MP Denise Phua reported to them about a threatening karung guni man [Link] or when Jessie Phua [Link] complained about a frustrated 17-year-old boy (son of a mother asking for help at a Meet-The-People-Session) throwing temper (chair).  I guess PAP members, not ordinary commoners, have their privileges.

In reading the exchanges between the police and Mr Wong and Mr Liew, we can understand the annoyance and frustration Of Mr Liew and Mr Wong. The can't-be-bothered police response in the delay in getting the medical report from SGH shows the standard of our police work. It truly gets your goat!

There's No Judge in Singapore Zoo and No Kangaroo in Singapore Court!
Or is there? How long does it take for justice to be done? Weeks? Years? It depends. Based on the above examples, if you belong to PAP, it may take days or weeks. However if you are not connected, it may take months or years! If you happen to be a taxi driver like Mr Tan, good luck to you! If not for the presence of Mr Liew and Mr Wong, the atrocious beating of Mr Wong by the foreign talents may not have seen the light of day!

The poor karang guni man, for his threat (not actually committing any physical violence) on Denise Phua, was sentenced to 6 months jail. However, as reported in NZHerald [Link], drunken bully "Australian Nathan Miller, was sentenced on Monday to three weeks' jail after he admitted a charge of causing hurt." 6 months jail for a threat from a local karung guni man (reported to have mental illness) to a MP but only 3 weeks for actual harm and injury caused by a foreigner to a commoner? Different folks, different strokes. Did sentences came from a court or a zoo? Or could it be mutually exclusive?

The fact that 2 of the accused managed to jump bail shows that our judiciary is not a zoo. It must be a kangaroo that helped the New Zealander and Brit flee Singapore. It's good knowledge that Singapore can manage to ensure that Chee Soon Juan (due to his being bankrupted by Father, Son & Goh) does not pass immigration but it's is ludicrous to note that New Zealander Robert Stephen Dahlberg, 34 and Briton Robert James Springall can "run road" after the physical violence they inflicted on Mr Tan, Mr Liew and Mr Wong.

"Build a democratic society based on justice and equality?

No wonder LKY said its just an aspiration. What a shame!

Fook the System!

No, we need not fook the system. We should better the system instead. To do what's decent; what's right; what's honourable. The leaders, the highly paid Ministers of Law and Home Affairs and their cronies should and must answer to this shameful miscarriage of justice and deplorable attitude and work of its officers. Though I do not get a cent of their $millions, I humbly suggest that they change the 'bo chap" (do not care) attitude of their police officers. Maybe they should pay them right, recognise their effort and not their balls carrying humbug. However, if the bosses (including elitist ministers and their cronies) prefer to have their balls (Chariot?) carried rather than getting honourable work done, then Singapore is fooked.

We are all fooked!

feedmetothefish






Friday, February 10, 2012

Founding Fathers of Only One and Tripartism of Only Two

THE FALLACY OF FOUNDING FATHERS OF ONLY ONE
Though one can hold power in one's lifetime after being a prime minister, can one usurp the modern history of Singapore too? After reading "Don't let S'pore pioneers be a lost generation" by Phua Mei Pin of ST, I started thinking of Dr Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, E W Barker and other PAP old guards. It also got me thinking of Chia Thye Poh, Fong Swee Suan, Lim Chin Siong, Said Zahari, Dr Lim Hock Siew and other pioneers that mainstream media would painstakingly not report or highlight.

With the passing of Dr Toh Chin Chye, we come to realise that there is more than one founding father in Singapore. Unlike the one who wrote memoir after memoir and hard truths on his own truths, Dr Toh did not write any book of self-aggrandisement to elevate himself for posterity. Maybe he believed that self praise is a bloody disgrace.

It is nice to know of Dr Toh's contribution and his fortitude in calling a spade a spade [Link] and [Link] without fear or favour. After the expose of the crybaby act, we can now have a better perspective of our recent history.

For whatever reason(s) that he was put out to pasture before his age, Dr Toh reminds me of a current rebel in Singapore. In the eulogy by his sibling, we come to know that his family in Taiping especially his parents felt assured of his well-being only after receiving the monthly RM$400 money order that Dr Toh sent them. We can empathise with the worry his parents had on his safety while fighting for independence in Singapore.

The current rebel I'm referring to is not a politician. He is a concerned Singaporean who risks his livelihood and freedom to educate, to record history usually in videos, to provide alternative news that msm are too sychophantic, too bootlicking and too scared to reveal. He is Martyn See Tong Ming and I'm  pretty sure that Martyn's parents worry for the safety of their son the way Dr Toh's parents did.

Though history is often written by the triumphant and powerful, truth may prevail with the courage of those who dare to make a difference. The information that is available at Martyn's sites [Link] and [Link] educates many who wish to know "Truths" other than self serving "Hard Truths'!  Those in the know knows that Martyn has been summoned on many occasions to answer to the police for his social activities. In the same way that Dr Toh fought for independence, I salute Martyn See for what he is doing for democracy and freedom of information in Singapore today. Keep well young man and stay free!


THE TRIPARTISM OF ONLY TWO
video




I am disturbed by this article [Link] and its attachment [Link]. The hype of the worker (Union), the Management and PAP Government working together as the Holy Trinity (Tripartism?) for the benefit of the workers is nothing but crap if what is written in the article is validated.

So who is Ong Ye Kung?
  • Is he the singer whose father was politically detained by ISA?
  • Is he the "I can see you I can feel you" MP who failed? [Link] Does he still feel privileged to serve Aljunied GRC after his "Outstanding Minister" George Yeo & Co. has quit and deserted Aljunied? Will he do the same?
  • Is this the guy who is going to chair the COI of SMRT Fiasco? 
  • Is he is a Director of SMRT.
  • Is he also the Acting Executive Secretary of National Transport Worker's Union?
I pose the questions above because the murkiness of conflict of interest, self worth and integrity keeps me dazed and confused. 

Whatever he is, he cannot put on 2 caps. How can he be the head of the a Workers' Union and be a Director of the Company that the workers he represent? Holy shit, the conflict of interests is so appalling that it is worse than being a two-headed snake! How can one be championing the interests of the workers and ensure the profits of the employer at the same time?

I hope that this dreadful conflict of interest is not true. If it is, how the hell does he get the peace of mind to sing such lovely song?

feedmetothefish

Update:
Just read this [Link] that confirms that Ong Ye Kung is "Investigation-team leader" of SMRT's internal investigation team and "SMRT independent board director". Before it gets murkier, it'll be good for the public to know what is the difference between a "independent" and "non-independent" board director. Does he get paid by SMRT and NTUC simultaneously? If so, it's conflictingly odd! No?

feedmetothfish




Monday, February 6, 2012

It's No Fun Being Poor But Is It Fun To Be The HIghest Paid Politician?





This report by Al Jazeera was done in 2008. It's coming to 4 years since but are the poor in Singapore getting better today?

In his recent interview with Fareed Zakaria [Link], PM Lee Hsien Loong said, "If you're poor in Singapore, it's no fun, but I think you're less badly off than in any other country in the world, including in the US". Honestly, are the poor in Singapore less badly off than the poor in any other country in the world, including in the US?

Poor as in no money; no job; no home; no health; no minimum wage; no respect; no integrity?
I think it applies to all regardless which country one belongs to.

Or it could be poor as in no democracy; no freedom? Or heavens forbid, poor as in a reduction in salary for PAP ministers? Crying shame, the poor sacrifices that rich ministers have to make!

I just read from Martyn See's facebook this will-never-appear-in-msm interview of Dr Toh Chin Chye [Link] by Melanie Chew on why Lee Kuan Yew cried not once but twice in 1965 and had to take a 6-week break to recover from his crack-up. With a response like, "If you're poor in Singapore, it's no fun, but I think you're less badly off than in any other country in the world, including in the US", one would think that Lee Hsien Loong needs a 6-week break too!

To brag about paying oneself 4 times more than the President of USA is one thing but to show off the poor of Singapore as being better off than those in US and other countries is disgraceful! This idiotic act of arrogance shows the character of the person! It reminds me of  Dr Balakrishnan's famous remark in 2007, "How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?" when MP Lily Neo asked for more public assistance for the poorest of the poor in Singapore.

As much as he tries to show that he is capable and deserves the riches that he gets as PM of Singapore, I think he has gone over the top with such an atrocious comparison of the poor. For the sheltered, privileged and the materially rich life that he has had since he was a kid, I can understand his ignorance of the poor. Since he has neither been there nor done that, it is offensively impolite of him to utter such rubbish!

Even a nincompoop knows that it is no fun to be poor but how are we to know that the poor in Singapore are better off than the poor of elsewhere? Or are the poor in Singapore enjoying 3 meals in restaurants daily now?

There were 2 blokes [Link] who proclaimed that there were no beggars in Singapore and now we have the highest paid PM in the world publicly declaring, "If you're poor in Singapore, it's no fun, but I think you're less badly off than in any other country in the world, including in the US".

What does it take to change the essence of a man?

Just what does it take to change the essence of a man who is paid millions by taxpayers of Singapore?



feedmetothefish

Sunday, February 5, 2012

The Caring of One and the Callousness of the Other

CPF.  The Central Provident Fund may be providing well for the big guns in Temasek or GIC. For its poor mandatory members, I'm not too sure.

I have always felt that PAP was and still is wrong in messing with our hard earned money. I did not know that Dr Toh Chin Chye felt the same way too. Not until I read this [Link] and this [Link].  Through Dr Toh Chin Chye's speech in Parliament in 1983 and 1984, it is heartening to note that he cared enough to speak up. He proved his mettle by abstaining from voting for the motion. For that he deserves our respect!

It's so often said that Singaporeans are apathetic. To be indifferent is fine but to be ignorant of the fact that Medisave is our hard earned money taken from our income through our hard work by CPF is detrimental to our well-being. It is equivalent to be tricked lock, stock and barrel. Could it be the reason why we are called 'daft' by our ex-MM/SM/PM Lee Kuan Yew? I'm amazed by uncles and aunties I meet in hospital and polyclinic who think that Medisave does not belong to them. The sense of "bochap' (in Hokkien = "don't care") and 'bopiancity" (in Hokkien = 'helplessness') in what the PAP through CPF can inflict upon them is scary. The wiser ones say, "Bo pian lah, Wah eh lui pian CPF eh lui, pian chenghu eh lui. Lan lan lor!" = "Can't be helped. My money becomes CPF money, becomes government money. Prick prick lor!" I think the last 3 words mean "Suck thumb. There's nothing I can do about it".

CPF was supposed to hold on to our savings till we reached 55. However, according to Ng Eng Hen, CPF Board deserved the right to delay returning our savings because of the tendency of 55-year-old-male-Singaporeans 'having a fling here and a fling there" [Link].

And if that's not enough, they have the temerity to charge you an administrative or processing fee when you wish to use your Medisave to pay for your medical bills [Link]. I can understand that most Singaporeans (and their close relatives) who are not sick will not be affected by such daylight robbery. However, many will think that inflicting more financial pain to the sick is loathsome.

According to PM Lee, it is it is better to be poor in Singapore than anywhere else in the whole wide world! [Link]  Such elitist callousness can only come from the highest paid politician in the whole wide world!

Rich or poor, elitist or otherwise, we live, we do and ultimately we die.

Some do with honesty
Some do with simplicity
Some do with pride
Some do with spur on their hide

Some do with caring humility
Some do with hubristic audacity
Some for goodness sake
Should stop their fookin' fake

feedmetothefish














Friday, February 3, 2012

The Bitch Is Back!

"WP's halo losing its shine" by Chua Lee Hoong, Political Editor, ST, Published on Feb 2, 2012.

Since when does one put a halo on a political party? Call me naive but I thought halo only applies to saints or holy persons. Just to be sure, I checked the dictionary and found that "halo" also means "the aura of glory, veneration, or sentiment surrounding an idealized person or thing". I'm amazed that Ms Chua is capable of such veneration especially to the Workers' Party. From her past writings, I would have thought that she reveres PAP more.

The piece in italic by Ms Chua took half a page of ST. I'll just stick my thoughts [FMTTF] in between the italics.

Extracted from Straits Times:

"Nine months ago, in the eyes of many Singaporeans hungry for political rebalancing, the Workers’ Party (WP) could do no wrong.
It had romped home to victory in Aljunied GRC, breaking the ruling party’s monopoly on Group Representation Constituencies for the first time since the latter were created in 1988, and toppling two ministers and one senior minister of state in the process. 
It had brought into Parliament the first opposition candidate with credentials to rival the best from the People’s Action Party (PAP) – Mr Chen Show Mao, top lawyer with an international law firm, former national top student, effectively bilingual, as adept in Tang dynasty history as in corporate law. 
Its presence in Parliament included four energetic chaps in their 30s – Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and Mr Yaw Shin Leong – bringing with them the promise of new blood in opposition ranks, ready to ensure that ageing veterans like Mr Low Thia Khiang would have successors at the ready. 
When Parliament sat in November, for the first time after the general election, all eyes were on the WP team – and while they could not be said to be spectacular, they did not disappoint either.
The WP MPs made speeches that contained thoughtful points reflecting concerns close to Singaporeans, whether relating to education, business, Chinese language or freedom of information."


FMTTF: Pardon my sexy thoughts, the art of foreplay before the fook is very well executed here.


"But then came the new year, and a new sitting of Parliament, and this time, it seemed as if the WP was in self-destruct mode.
The ministerial pay debate that took place two weeks ago could have been the WP’s star turn – an opportunity for it to show that it had a principled approach to the subject, had thought through all options and implications, and had done its homework thoroughly.
Instead, over the three days of debate, which I watched from start to finish, the WP’s deficiencies became painfully clear.
‘If this is a First World Parliament, I want none of it,’ I muttered wearily to a colleague at the end of the three days."


FMTTF: Inability to get it up or ejaculating too fast, if Chua wants none of it, lesser mortals may just bear with it. Surprisingly, her perception of WP's deficiency is exactly what I thought of PAP's inadequacy and shortfall in the Ministerial Salary Debate. PAP's hubristic belly aching on ministers' sacrifice [Link] and wanting to be put on a pedestal either make you cringe or, worse, puke. And we thought PAP with the tea sessions had all the studs!


"To recap, a ‘First World Parliament’ was what the WP campaigned on in the May General Election.
Its manifesto proclaimed the WP’s aim to ‘form the government’ in the long term, and among other things, declared that ministerial pay should be benchmarked to that of leaders in developed countries.
Calls for transparency were made five times in the manifesto, on matters ranging from crime information and defence to Central Provident Fund money and immigration statistics.
Yet during the ministerial pay debate – and in the days after – the WP has been unwilling and unable to explain its changing stances on ministerial pay.
It has had three positions in five years – pegging to foreign leaders’ pay, pegging to income of the bottom 20 per cent of Singaporeans, and most recently, pegging to the MX9 salary scale in the civil service."


FMTTF: In three positions or one (or 'missionary' or a '69'), why on earth is it a sin for WP to change it's stance on ministerial pay and not a sin for PAP to do the same? If not for PAP's Lee Hsien Loong wanting to adjust his $millions (and hopefully win more votes in the next election), this debate would not have taken flight in the first place. The silliness in this argument make me wonder how often PAP and their 'blind faith' supporters want to enjoy the masochism of shooting their own feet!


"The WP’s key leaders, Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim, have steadfastly refused to comment on the subject. It has been left to Mr Gerald Giam, the 34-year-old Non-Constituency MP, to front the WP’s latest position.
Some say that is because Mr Giam, a one-time civil servant, is the key champion of the new formula. But that begs the question: Why the shift from the earlier positions? There is no logical connect between each of the three positions, unlike the formulation by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries which was essentially a widening of an existing base of top earners in Singapore."


FMTTF: The fact that Mr Low and Ms Sylvia Lim need not comment on the issue shows how steady and confident they are of their newly elected MPs and NCMP. Their steadfastness in letting their members bleed and going through the baptism of fire shows there is hope yet for 1st World Parliament in Singapore. So unlike the mollycoddling of MPs of the other party.


"That lack of transparency on the issue of ministerial pay extends into a more recent saga involving the WP – the Yaw Shin Leong affair.
The 35-year-old MP for Hougang, widely billed as Mr Low’s protege in the run-up to last year’s election, is now the subject of screaming tabloid headlines across Singapore for an alleged extramarital affair with another married party member.
Mr Yaw and all WP leaders have declined to comment on the allegations.
There are two distinct issues here – the behaviour of a public figure, a Member of Parliament, and the evasiveness of a party that has the declared aim of forming the government.
Which carries more weight depends on your personal beliefs, but neither should be a trivial matter."


FMTTF: Aaah . . . so here's the climax! The sting on the moral behaviour of alleged extramarital affair of Yaw Shin Leong and the frustration of some in not getting any comment from WP leaders and Yaw. Rumour especially on sex sells. However if rumour is what makes news and Ms Chua wishes to dig deeper, I humbly suggest that she visit this blog [Link] and expand on the "allegations" made on the power that is further. Maybe not.  Lord Acton said in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Bully the the less endowed but never mess with those who have or are connected!


"Back during the hustings last year, the WP was embroiled in a much-publicised battle of words with the PAP as to whether it was a ‘spare tyre’, or ‘co-driver’, or more.
To disarm voters wary of a freak election result in which a party other than the PAP is returned to power, it proclaimed itself as aiming to be no more than a ‘spare tyre’, kept in reserve in case of emergency.
It wanted no more than to be a constructive opposition, it said, and to keep the PAP Government on its toes.
Fine words, lofty aims. But once again, there’s a disconnect that needs to be explained, for its own manifesto makes clear it wants to be more than a spare tyre.
The third paragraph in the manifesto’s introduction says: ‘The WP’s long-term aim is to form the government. While in opposition, we will promote parliamentary democracy by seeking the people’s mandate to be elected Members of Parliament, so that we can call the government to account at the national level.’
The way the WP is going now, it is a long way from being in a position to form the government. Indeed, at the moment, it is the WP itself that needs to be called to account."


FMTTF: If manifesto of political parties shines like halo, let's take a look the "true" manifesto of PAP [Link]. If WP needs to be called to account, with the shambles of transportation woes, overcrowding population, flood, alleged corruption of Narco and SCDF Chiefs, is there not a need to ask of PAP  to be called to account too? Fair is fair. It been a while since I read any political comments from either of the Chua sisters of ST.

Yeah, the Bitch is Back and I'm glad to be reminded by Elton John here in the 1970's [Video Link] and lately at Las Vegas [Video Link].

feedmetothefish