Monday, June 30, 2008

Are these the words of a madman?

"If you have truth on your side and you know your cause to be just, you need never fear your rulers and what they do to you." Chee Soon Juan

No, these are not the words of a "near psychopath"(so said MM Lee Kuan Yew) nor one with "antisocial personality disorder" (so said Chua Lee Hoong, Political Editor -
Straits Times). These words came from Chee Soon Juan, a father of 3 toddlers (if I'm not mistaken), jailed many times for his courage to stand up for for his beliefs. For all his 'craziness', the way this non-lawyer put the Lee father and son to silence in Belinda Ang's court (to consider the damages after the summary judgement of the defamation suit) was a revelation to all who bothered to know more about this 'antisocial personality disorder near psychopath", Jee Soon Juan.

The perception I had of Mr Chee Soon Juan was bad, very bad! If my memory serves me well, he's claimed to have cheated his employer of taxi fares, petty cash and even postage fee to send his wife's exam papers for marking. Oh, his worst pictures were also splashed in most newspapers in the "Where's our money?" incident with Goh Chok Tong. And yes, I'm still wondering where's our money. Temasek? GIC? Ho Ching's "Sovereign Poverty Fund"? Where and how much?

With such well-oiled msm machinery I was, like most, led to believe that Chee Soon Juan was a cheat, a liar, a man that I could not and should not trust even with a ten-foot pole. During my those days days, I was too busy 'chari makan', I never bothered much about politics though I was getting more and more dismayed with the arrogance of Lee Kuan Yew's PAP's "my way or the highway" attitude towards it's citizens. The few chances I had to vote, I voted for the opposition, supporting them for their courage, hoping that they gained enough votes not to forfeit their election deposit :) Yes, voting was a serious matter and helping those who fought the Freak who came up with the funny term "freak election result" if his party loses was a vote well used.

It is so easy to be mindless and accept what others say and preach. It is so easy to follow the rest of the sheep and care not what the down and out are struggling for. It is so much easier to be the 'yes man' and not rock the boat even when you know that the boat is going the wrong way. What does it take to wake up to the fact that the 3 meals a day and a roof over the heads for those close to you are more than what you want as a free citizen? What does it take to realise that you've been suckered into respecting and even honouring those
money sucking leeches whose greed for power and despotism is insatiable?

What does it take to take the road less traveled and to stop being a wimp?

Yes, what does it take to stand up for Singapore? To feel, to know and to say that maybe those who call others crazy are crazy themselves. Crazy with power, crazy with their positions, crazy that people are not afraid of them and crazy about money not enough.

It took a chat with Chee Siok Chin at the Burmese Embassy for me to understand a little why the Chee siblings do what they do. I'm a bit tired of the labels that's thrown at them. Why would a guy sacrifice the good time he can have with his family (remember his 3 kids) and spend his time in jail? Some say he's dumb. To those who think he is, I cordially invite them to listen and read the transcripts of the court case to know the difference between the garbage that's thrown at us by msm and the real thing that's happened!

The enlightening audio recordings and transcripts are available here:

Talking about garbage, the stink is getting worse. The way that Aw Cheng Wei of Sunday Times whacked Tan Lead Shake on the death of Tan's brother was cruel. Why does the ST enjoy so much in running a poor man down? Though sympathy is not expected of them, I believe a little empathy is not too much to ask for. Or is empathy only reserved for leaders and eleetists and not for the ordinary men especially those who have tempted fate by running against PAP in elections? Mr Law Sin Ling of National Solidarity Party wrote:

"If the same standard of journalistic sludge was applied to the stricken missus of Minister Mentor Lee (the chief of the PAP) dying under public resources from brain haemorrhage, readers would have been abundantly served sordid stories from Mrs. Lee’s family and the sparks of all their domestic contentions. But alas, the Fourth Estate is all too mindful of the source of their patronage."

Yes, I wonder. Guess we can be sordid to some but empathy and sympathy must always be shown to the special few. I was at a Community Club recently and one of the staff there offered me a nice marker and asked me to sign a giant "get well" card. The card was meant for MM Lee's wife. I told the staff that having suffered a heart attack myself, I do not wish any disease upon anyone, including Mrs Lee. As much as I wish her well I could not get myself to sign the 'giant get well card' . It seemed a little too much (over the top?) and insincere of me to do so. I decline the offer because I do not know Mrs Lee personally and she doesn't know me from Adam.

The astonished look from the staff when I declined was as if I had committed robbery or suicide. I'm still not sure.


Thursday, June 26, 2008

Minister Mentor: Which ever way but lose?

"5 Years - All it takes to ruin Singapore"
Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent, Straits Times June 26 2008.

I read and I'm not flabbergasted but appalled and irritated.

'In five years, you can ruin this place and it's very difficult to pick up the pieces,' he told 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel.

'When you're Singapore and your existence depends on performance - extraordinary performance, better than your competitors - when that performance disappears because the system on which it's been based becomes eroded, then you've lost everything,' he said.

With due respect to Mr Lee, the rot has started.

  • Obscene ministerial salaries.
  • A little red dot where a PM needs a SM who needs a MM to do a PM job.
  • The high handedness of sucking more money from people through CPF and HDB, apart from other means like GST, ERPs and other taxes. Of course, excluding Estate Duties which was withdrawn so suddenly and quickly for the benefit of the rich and famous.
  • The efficiency of Wong Kan Seng and Ministry of Home Affairs in relation to Mas Selamat, escapes in Subordinate Courts and the Father-Passport-Son-Passport joke.
  • The revelation in cyberspace of Chee siblings carrying themselves in the Court.
  • The use of the people's money in Shincorp, Merill Lynch, UBS and others that we don't know anything about.
  • The desperation to promote foreign talents, casinos and FI. Looks like we are making it in the "fast money, fast cars and fast women" category. Been to the whole stretch of Geylang Road lately? I mean the whole stretch from Lorong 3 to Lorong 30 something. We haven't covered Joo Chiat, Little India, Chinatown and Orchard Road yet. We can't qualify in World Cup Soccer but we sure can beat Patpong of Bangkok at this game!
This could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the 'vociferous opposition' a chance - out of 'light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness'.

I think voters are not bored. Neither are they fickle nor mad.

They are actually fed up. "They are fed up with progress!" brought on by the current government.

They sure need to lighten up and not get caught up in this "Being a crony of PAP and having more $$$ is nearer to God" culture with examples set by rich ministers. Having heard J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame said in her 2008 Harvard Commencement Address that being poor is not an ennobling experience, I think being 'Kiasi', 'Kiasu', 'Kia Chenghu' and 'Kia Yew' has gone on for too far and too long and has turned a dis-ease to a sickening disease.

Second, leaders who are above board, who make decisions based on necessity, not how they will personally benefit. He said Singaporeans know they have such leaders because, over the years, 'we have not got richer, Singapore has'.

I hope Mr Lee can put his hand on his heart when he said, 'we have not got richer, Singapore has'. It sounds grand to tell delegates that PAP government makes Singapore and not the leaders rich. If they have not personally benefit, pray tell why are ministers paid millions (up to $3.7m for his PM son, apart from his pensions as BG and PM after 55) while most Singaporeans can hardly keep up with the inflation. If Singapore has got richer, who is benefiting from it? Ordinary Singaporeans with the measly progress package, GST rebates and what have you?? Or the elites who's having fun messing with the peoples' money in investments all over the world?

If Singapore is rich, people do not need handouts like Progress Package, GST, Utility and conservancy charges rebates. Those in their 60's and 70's need bend double to collect aluminum cans and used cartons from garbage bins to eke out a living. They should be enjoying their golden years playing with their grandchildren or, like MM Lee and SM Goh, traveling round the world and giving speeches in posh hotels to teach others how to get rich too!

Ministers "make decisions based on necessity, not how they will personally benefit"? I may be dull, but I do not believe that all PAP ministers and MPs are in it for altruism. If there's one thing I know for sure is that they are holding on to their salary and power by all means, including blaming the little people for national shame when Mas selamat jalan and feeling appalled but not guilty when Immigration became Sleeping Beauty when daddy flew to Vietnam with son's passport. The way they gerrymandeer with election boundaries & GRCs and belittle the opposition speaks volume of how they are hanging on. I may be dull again but for heaven's sake, I'm sure there are many decent, good and capable Singaporean leaders, not within the grasp of PAP, who refuse to be inducted and be tainted by this hall of fame.

The arrogance that Singapore without PAP will sink has to stop. It is suffocating.

The problem with popular democracy, he said, is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

Noting that Mr Obama won the nomination because he had a team of advisers who help him strategise, Mr Lee said, "Does that make a man who will bring change to the world? I hope he has a team that knows how to bring change to the world... Where do we go from here? Well, we don't know. Lets' trust luck and see what happens. And that's what we have to do." - ST June 26 2008 by Ling Chang Hong.

Again, why belittle Mr Obama who may be on his way to greatness. For more than 50 years, I have heard Mr Lee's persuasive speech to prove his ability. He also used rhetoric to demolish many of his political opponents and lately even used strong words against young journalists.

  • "But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed... If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right... " - Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955
  • "If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states - then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself." - Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955
  • "Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict." -Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956
  • "If we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows for the free play of idea...then, in the name of all the gods, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework." - Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Oct 4, 1956
I agree with Mr Lee that talk is cheap and some are just more persuasive than others. However, unlike Mr Lee, maybe Mr Obama will do what he pledged when he becomes President.

As for my country Singapore, "Lets' trust luck and see what happens. And that's what we have to do."

We are in the new millennium with mp3 and mp4 audio, I think the old record playing scare tactics just got stuck in the groove. It's getting irritating.


More on J.K Rowling and Amnesty International here

By Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent, Straits Times June 26 2008

ONE freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore's success in building up the city state, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew warned last night.

This could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the 'vociferous opposition' a chance - out of 'light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness'.

'In five years, you can ruin this place and it's very difficult to pick up the pieces,' he told 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel.

Mr Lee was responding to a Bangladesh delegate who asked if Singapore would continue to thrive in his absence. The delegate also expressed sorrow at the news of Mrs Lee's illness, and Mr Lee thanked him.

In his reply, Mr Lee returned to themes he has spoken on often - the need for a system to ensure good leaders emerge, and the danger that voters plumping for more opposition MPs might end up with an unintended change of government.

Larger countries rich in resources can survive such a freak outcome, but not Singapore, he said.

'When you're Singapore and your existence depends on performance - extraordinary performance, better than your competitors - when that performance disappears because the system on which it's been based becomes eroded, then you've lost everything,' he said.

'I try to tell the younger generation that and they say the old man is playing the same record, we've heard it all before. I happen to know how we got here and I know how we can unscramble it.'

He said a country needed three elements to succeed.

First, a government that people have confidence in and will trust when tough decisions need to be taken.

Second, leaders who are above board, who make decisions based on necessity, not how they will personally benefit. He said Singaporeans know they have such leaders because, over the years, 'we have not got richer, Singapore has'.

Third and most importantly, a country needs able men in charge.

The problem with popular democracy, he said, is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.

The forum, chaired by Mr Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, was a highlight of the first World Cities Summit and International Water Week.

In his opening remarks, Mr Lee spoke for 20 minutes off the cuff, recounting his 40 years of striving to build up Singapore's independent water supply. He was determined because as long as Singapore was totally reliant on its neighbours for water, it would remain a 'satellite'.

During a 30-minute question-and-answer session, participants from around the world probed him about water management and political leadership.

He also presented the first Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize to Dr Andrew Benedek, a pioneer in the field of membrane technology for water treatment.

A key outcome of several sessions held yesterday was the setting up of an informal network of 16 countries - comprising the Asean 10, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand - to share ideas and expertise on how to go about pursuing sustainable development.

And the World Bank announced plans to set up in Singapore a regional hub for training urban planners, which will draw on the Republic's success in city development.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Wong Kan Seng Again?

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

Just what does it take to change the essence of those great men in PAP?

Where does the buck stops?

How many more screw-ups do we need before the buck stops?

I'm sure most know the Hokkien translation of Wong Kan Seng. However, I do wish the Home Affairs Minister would not fudge first before he goes blaming his subordinates again for the latest joke at the Immigration Department at Changi Airport.

We do not have corruption in Singapore.
We do not have nepotism in Singapore.
It's meritocracy, stupid!

I do not know think Singaporeans are stupid but the joke is wearing a little thin. Does having the right relationship plays a role in job security and million dollars salary? Or is the wisdom and genius in Singapore found only in one family, their relatives and their cronies?

Do we need a disaster like a suicide bomber killing some in Singapore before someone stands up to take responsibility for the lapse and complacency that's become a never ending joke in Singapore?

Do we need demonstrations (like we see in Thailand, Indonesia and even Malaysia) in Singapore before they realise that there's a right time to do the right thing? To be accountable, be honourable and to have the dignity to bite the bullet and do the right thing?

Will we get more hubris & fudge from the chosen few and listen to their thick-skinned rhetorics to justify the incompetence of The Incompetent?

Or will we see the man-in-waiting (ex-lawyer) waits no more and plays the part of The Main Man in Home Team?

Since Mas selamat jalan, the Wayang has moved to 5* rating especially with the transcripts and audios of the trial of Belinda Ang and this Passport Joke.

Life in Singapore can still be fun if we know how to lighten up with the Wayang that never cease to amaze :)

The transcripts of the defamation trial are available at

The audio files may be heard and downloaded from:

YouTube has been useful too! Watch


Saturday, June 14, 2008

Complacent Again?

In view of the latest embarrassment created by the double escape attempt at the Subordinate Court, Teo Ho Pin said he would 'definitely query the Home Affairs Ministry again' at the next parliamentary sitting next month.

What's wrong with the subordinates of Wong Kan Seng in Home Affairs Ministry? Why do they have to embarrass their Boss again? Or do you really want him sacked?

While googling for the latest on Mas Selamat, I came across Expected Analysis in TOC. Though it's more than 3 months since the Great Escape, it good to read what written below.

I'm posting it here as the questions asked are most relevant and yes, another reminder for all of us not to be complacent and be ever vigilant of spins and wag the dog!
  1. Expected Analysis on April 26th, 2008 5.08 pm : Comment 37 of The Mas Selamat Scandal from The Online Citizen

    Committee of Citizen Statement On The Committee of Sensible Inquiry
    On The Ministerial Statement Made In Parliament On The Committee Of Inquiry Findings On The Escape Of Mas Selamat

    Dear President, MM, SM, PM, PAP ministers, MPs, NMPs, Fellow Singaporeans,

    The Committee of Sensible Inquiry (CSI) was convened to vet the report submitted to DPM, Wong Kan Seng. This is necessary as the citizens feel that the DPM’s choice of the COI members constitutes potential conflict of interest between the DPM, the government and the citizens. As such, transparency, accountability and liability will be subject to less than independent scrutiny.

    After having exercised due diligence over the COI’s report, the following points of contentions and unexplained circumstances are herein, put forward for public awareness and discussion.

    1. Reference: Statement Points 13 & 14
    Mas Selamat was escorted to locker room to change into civilian clothes. He stood behind a column of lockers to change.

    CSI’s query:
    WRDC is a detention centre with well-established prison protocol. Therefore, detainees there won’t get any privilege of privacy. Given common sense, a detainee’s clothes are subject to checks, for those stripped and for those put on, unless there is no visible clothing on him/her.

    2. Reference: Statement Point 16
    The guard waited for a few minutes outside the urinal cubicle door with the sound of the tap water running and Mas’ trousers slung over the top of the cubicle door.

    CSI’s query:
    a. The urinal cubicle is not equipped with toilet bowl nor shower. We find it inconceivable that the guard would wait for a few minutes, knowing very well that the most Mas can do inside was passing urine, which at most would take less than a minute.

    b. It is human knowledge that men do not remove their trousers to pass urine under normal circumstances. The guard, being a man, is fully aware of this anomaly if indeed, Mas did remove his trousers. The guard would had sense this foul play and done the necessary, unless he was aware that Mas was engaged in some self-service acts.

    c. The cubicle door does not extend to the ceiling and the sound of the running tap water was not possible to mask the purported escape as the guard was in such close proximity. The handle-less window, although without grilles, would not facilitate an easy escape without creating noises. The sound of the running tap water cannot possibly be as loud as a torrential rain unless designed and equipped to be so.

    d. The woman ISD officer outside when alerted, had to summon an Assistant Case Officer to check on Mas. This is totally unbelievable when the gurkha guard was right outside the cubicle door to do it immediately.

    e. CSI is of the opinion that the guards and the ISD officers are such professionally trained security personnel to be able to commit such incoherent errors.

    f. The uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre.

    3. Reference: Statement Point 19
    The COI finds no conclusive evidence of the escape route Mas took after climbing out of the toilet window. It surmises that Mas could have climbed onto the roof of an enclosed staircase and walkway at the section where the perimeter fencing converges with this enclosed staircase and walkway. Mas could have jumped over the perimeter fence. COI observed that the baju kurong which Mas was wearing, was found in the forested area outside the perimeter fence.

    CSI’s query:
    a. The fact that no conclusive evidence of the escape route can be established may also point to the fact that the escape did not occur at all.

    b. Where the enclosed staircase and walkway converge with the perimeter fencing, this so-called weakness would had been factored with the appropriate security measures in the planning stage.

    c. No evidence was presented on the distance between the closest jump-off point and the perimeter fence. Whether it is possible to simply jump over the fence is a critical factor that must be established to support this theory.

    d. The baju kurong which Mas was reported wearing and which was found outside could had been placed there prior to the search if the escape did not occur in the first place.

    4. Reference: Statement Point 25
    In my view, the security weakness of this window is the single most crucial factor which enabled Mas to escape. The omission to fully secure this ventilation window in the Family Visitation Block toilet used by detainees was a glaring weakness which should have been rectified, and not dealt with in an ad hoc manner by sawing off the window handle.

    CSI’s query:
    CSI emphasized that the uninstalled window grille is not crucial to the escape as the meticulous planning and design of the overall security measures make it impossible to escape from the detention centre. That the supposedly highly qualified superintendent of WRDC did not see it necessary to grille the window supports our notion. Therefore, this cannot be a source to channel the blame.

    5. Reference: Statement Point 32
    The CCTV coverage of the area was in the midst of being upgraded. At the time of the escape, there were two CCTV cameras mounted at the location where Mas climbed out of the Family Visitation Block. However, these cameras were not commissioned yet. The system is still in its testing and validation stage. As such, there was no recording or active monitoring of these cameras.

    CSI’s query:
    Given that WRDC is such an important detention centre housing terrorists, it is simply beyond logic to have non-active monitoring nor recording cameras even in this case where upgrading is on-going.

    There was no mention of the other cameras in the vicinity. Is the DPM suggesting that all cameras were not functioning nor recording at that time, in the midst of the upgrading? Not commissioned does not necessarily mean that they are not working.

    Since no escape point could be confirmed in the first place, this is subject to further clarification. It is also possible that no evidence of escape could be presented from the recordings, which explained for the non-commissioned cameras.

    The Post Incident Response
    CSI strongly chastises the DPM and his subordinates for the rather mediocre and comical info provided to the public over the days after the escape. This is unbecoming of a ministry handling national security. Descriptions on Mas were simply confusing. This can only be excusable if Mas was new to the detention centre.

    CSI is of the opinion that to escape from the centre is near impossible if unaided. Not unless all the security measures failed at the same time and the centre is unmanned. The only other explanation for this episode is that no escape took place.

    CSI unreservedly thank all those activated and involved in the manhunt including the innumerous sufferings and inconveniences endured in this episode. The government is expected to compensate all as a token of appreciation.

    Other highly suspect and contentious misdemeanor identified by CSI:

    1. The appointment and composition of the COI is highly questionable with conflict of interest and collusion a distinct possibility. Of equal glaring concern is that the DPM chose to stick to his choice when this anomaly was highlighted. However, the greatest concern is that the PM did not object to this when it is so obvious that accountability and integrity are at stake in this matter involving the DPM, which will ultimately reflect on the government.

    2. That the COI’s findings was accepted wholesale by the DPM and in turn, by the PM, is shocking and beyond comprehension. With so many points of contentions, the citizens are hard pressed to demand for transparency. A separate COI comprising neutral parties is the only solution for a credible report, more so, in this case involving the integrity and accountability of the highest office in Singapore.

    3. It is puzzling and highly controversial that the DPM chose to exonerate the director of ISD prior to the release of the COI report. There is no doubt of questionable integrity at a time when the DPM himself is subject to accountability and liability pending the COI report.

    Compounding the question of integrity is the fact that the PM saw it fit and proper to endorse his continued confidence for the DPM despite all these disturbing facts of controversial proceedings. As such, the PM’s integrity is now also under the spotlight and subject to scrutiny.

    4. Despite the systemic failures of the current incident along with many previous failings, the DPM was not censured nor penalized or demoted. Incoherently, the PM has embarked on a crusade of exonerating ministers from being accountable for the mistakes of their subordinates despite declaring that ministers are ultimately responsible for their ministries.

    5. Both the PM and the DPM have been exemplary in dodging issues raised by channeling accountability and blame to the guards and the superintendent of WRDC only. Of paramount concern is that this seemingly promiscuous delegation of responsibility has been well-received in parliament with no objection nor abstention of support.

    6. The citizens are highly concerned and disoriented that their $10,000+ per day PM is uttering less than creditable arguments. With 2 casinos in mind, he exhibits pre-occupation with gambling matters in using the throwing of dice to decide on possibly difficult decisions, where a 1 means a straightforward decision while a 6 denotes 6 variable choices of decisions. Very confounding and challenging to try not to get a 6 indeed.

    7. CSI reminds the government that this matter is not properly settled yet. Any call to move on from here will only add fuel to the fire, which in due course, will be difficult to put out. It is in the interest of Singapore that a further thorough investigation be expedited to restore integrity and accountability.


Expected Analysis

A Dedicated Response To Chua Lee Hoon Of ST

“Reading Internet postings often makes my blood boil.”

What a shame! As a journalist, your mind should be as wide as an ocean to accommodate differing views. If you are touting that others should listen to people like you only, it’s time for you to move out rather than move on.

“Too many netizens obviously have not read the full account ………………….etc, etc.”

We believe you have not read enough of what the citizens said and meant or rather, you prefer not to reflect on their views accordingly.

“How many of those called for the resignation of Teo Chee Hean…………….etc.”

Well, this is proof that time, trend and sentiment are vastly different now. The citizens have awakened from their slumber, vowing not to be complacent anymore.

“If a fire…..If a teacher……..etc?

These are rather incoherent examples compared to the escape. You are way off the track.

“Common sense……….or there will no ministers left in no time.”

Are we expected to accept mistakes, blunders, etc, without any fair accountability and responsibility? The last thing we worry about is losing the liable minister. In fact, if there are more of them of such nature, we have to ensure that the problem is rooted out.

“But the Mas Selamat case? What loss has there been, except that of face – mostly?”

A real pity that you were not given a chance to voice this in parliament. All the work, reporting, searches, inconveniences, parliament time, lost productive time, etc, would have been expedited for something you believed is not worth the trouble. The DPM and the PM should have taken your advice to simply brush off this case as a little lost of face matter. Therefore, the COI and Ministerial Statement combined is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money.

“If you talk to businessmen………………no impact on their business decisions.”

As long as business is as usual, we do believe this escape will have no impact on business sentiments.

“After such a signature event……..there has been unprecedented transparency……..”

You are not following the Internet news nor the citizens’ discussion. More likely, you choose to dismiss them. If after reading the report and you have no doubts about it, that’s your opinion. To us, the report presented more questions than before. In fact, the whole saga has become a mystery.

“Yes, there were confusing moments……………………………….”

Well, no thanks for reminding us of this factual blunder. It adds credence to the mystery, no doubt.

“Compare Singapore’s handling………………with America’s equivalent.”

We are responsible for our own and our country’s matter. Therefore, there is no logic in drawing a comparison here unless we believe we are a part of America. Or are you advocating that we should adopt the same as what happened there? Perhaps, you should follow up with your mouthful to Bush. We’ll encourage you to take this initiative.

“If people want transparency……………………..”

Interestingly, you choose not to address the issue of the COI members, which is one of the biggest issues. All we need is an independent COI team to do the necessary.

“As far as heads to roll……………the government made a tactical mistake……………..”

A tactical mistake is your judgement. We fully agree with the DPM that disciplinary action can only be exercised after the due process. Therefore, we strongly feel that your judgment here is flawed. If your judgment is largely accepted, then it proves that the PM and the DPM have been less than competent.

“Word has it ………who has been disciplined and how………………….”

We already knew the safe position of the PM and the DPM plus the director of ISD. We can envisage what will happen to the others. Gurkha guards will be sent home, ISD woman officer dismissed and the superintendent demoted and/or posted out. Until we have the concrete evidence and independent findings, we reserve our rights to cast doubts on this sordid affairs. At the same time, we maintain our calls for transparency and accountability of the DPM in order to justify the disciplinary process.

“Meanwhile, there are many other things………they’ve got no time to think about this.”

We wonder why you would expense so much time and energy to come up with this insight then. Thinking aloud, we feel that you’re trying too hard to impress the PM and the DPM, to the point of being incoherent in certain arguments and examples cited in your article.

Singaporeans are bothered about rising costs as well as government accountability. Looking in perspective, they are closely linked.

“Lets move on……..”

We have. But that doesn’t mean this case has been rested. We just cannot be complacent anymore. We are accountable to ourselves as well.

Finally, allow us to issue this advisory for your attention. Change your mindset to be a real independent journalist. Present arguments and facts for readers’ consideration. Don’t ever attempt to infect your uninvited biased report in readers’ memory. The firewall is operating 24/7 and updated constantly. Most of all, you will lose your credibility and integrity.

Please read Grace Ng’s report on Temasek and GIC’s investment in Sunday Times, 27-4-08, on Page 28. This is what can be termed a balanced report expected of a non-partisan journalist.

Monday, June 9, 2008

My thanks to Mr Anthony Yeo

Having a blog to write what you feel without fear or favour is good way to get irritating, stifling and heart breaking stuff off your chest. However, sometimes it gets lonely when you touch on subjects that's not politically correct as in not sucking up to PAP. It gets more difficult when those who really love you advise that hitting one's head against against the wall is merely hurting oneself. It gets real scary when you are told the rich and powerful will come after you. Even you believe that discretion is the better part of valour and you blog anonymously.

To every life, a little rain must fall. Likewise, I think to every life there comes a rainbow when we least expect it!

After writing in my blog about the What Utter Rubbish! mentioned by Chua Lee Hoong of Chee Soon Juan, I am delighted that Mr Anthony Yeo has wrote to her to inform her of her "denigrating, demeaning and dismissive description of Chee Soon Juan". Delighted in the sense that a gentleman of Mr Yeo's profession and calibre cares enough to put down a diseased opinion, which if not challenged now, may be accepted as a gospel truth by many.

Being a mere blogger, a whisper in the wilderness, Mr Yeo's letter to Chua Lee Hoong encourages me and strengthens my faith that "sedikit sedikit lama lama jadi bukit". Mr Yeo shows that being right and honourable, and standing righteously by one who is considered a "nut case" by Lee Kuan Yew and the mainstream media is more important than the next promotion or be in the good book of the rich and powerful ministers.

My sincere appreciation to Mr Anthony Yeo in putting his money where his mouth is and standing up for Mr Chee Soon Juan who is demonised, ostracised and trampled upon by the rich & powerful, the sychophants and those who know not what the truths may be.

For his courage to speak up and his loyalty to someone he worked with, my sincere hope is that Mr Anthony Yeo will not be demonised and be dismissed as another "near psychopath" by those who have the heavy propaganda machinery to do so.

Dear Mr Anthony Yeo, I salute and thank you.


Saturday, June 7, 2008

What Utter Rubbish!

Someone sent me this pic and article by Chua Lee Hoong to irritate me. He knows how my stomach turns and how my skin crawls whenever balls-carrying articles appear in msm which I hate to read. My doctors and cardiologist are dead against me reading them too as they feel that reading such materials is detrimental to my health especially my broken heart.

To Chua Lee Hoong's description of Chee Soon Juan being "What wasted potential", a phrase that my colonial English teacher used to say came to mind. "What utter rubbish!" My teacher of 50 years ago would have said if he's still alive today.

It really amazes me that a political editor of Straits Times would write the way she wrote. It seems that she's regurgitating what Lee Kuan Yew said. Minister Mentor said in court that Chee Soon Juan is considered a "near psychopath"by his doctors, we now have Chua Lee Hoong jumping on the bandwagon in describing CSJ as
"Irresponsible, reckless, impulsive, unethical are all words that describe Chee's behaviour. Interestingly, they are also all words associated with what American psychologists call antisocial personality disorder, which manifests itself in a disregard for truth and for social norms.
According to a medical website, one complication that might arise from this disorder is frequent imprisonment for unlawful behaviour."

Anti-social personality disorder? I guess behaving like a sychophant or toady to the rich & powerful and "I'm with you Boss, I support you Boss!" kind of writing should then be the acceptable social norm in Singapore? Do we have to sell our principles, our souls to be in the good books so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation (ourselves)?

I'm surprised she did not add that "He’s a liar, a cheat, and altogether an unscrupulous man."

In their chase for glory and even job security some may be
"Irresponsible, reckless, impulsive, unethical" without even realising it :)

Psychopath? Sychophant? To each, his/her own.

On a lighter note:
I think singers are smarter than politicians. Quote from Nancy Sinatra of her father's (Frank Sinatra) career advice to her,
'He said to me - wise words - "Just stay away from what I do. You'll be up for comparison, and it'll be ridiculous"'.

"These Boots are Made For Walking" but saying "Something Stupid" like "Mee Siam Mai Hum" is ridiculous indeed!


The squandered potential of Chee Soon Juan
By Chua Lee Hoong, Political Editor

Today, one cannot help but conclude that the trailblazer is more a sputtering meteor, and perhaps one with an antisocial personality disorder.

MANY people will remember the stir caused by Chee Soon Juan when he first entered politics.
The year was 1992; the occasion, the Marine Parade by-election called by then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong. Chee was a psychology lecturer at the National University of Singapore. Just 30 years old, he was eloquent, photogenic and full of passionate conviction.

Mr Chiam See Tong, then-leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), hailed his new recruit as 'perhaps the most courageous person in Singapore today'. He looked forward to Chee heralding a new era in opposition politics, one in which more well-educated professionals entered the fray.

What has happened in the 16 years hence? Today, one cannot help but conclude that the trailblazer is more a sputtering meteor, and perhaps one with an antisocial personality disorder.

The SDP that is now under his leadership is no more than a ragtag band, hardly credible as an opposition party.

Nowhere was this more evident than in court last week, during the three-day hearing to assess damages in the defamation suit Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had won against the SDP, Chee and his sister Siok Chin.

SDP supporters numbered not more than 15 or so, even though the public gallery was invariably full. Of those who started out as neutral observers, I would venture that not a few ended up even less sympathetic to Chee after observing his behaviour up close.

Chee and his supporters will argue that the SDP's sad state of affairs is entirely the doing of the ruling party. The latter, they will allege, has used all means at its disposal to suppress the SDP's rise.

Such a 'Poor me! I'm a victim' argument will, however, cut no ice with the majority of Singaporeans, who can point to Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam as examples of opposition politicians who have managed to get elected in successive polls in spite of the uphill battle.

Going by anecdotal evidence, Chee has disappointed an entire generation of voters who had hoped that his entry into politics in 1992 would bring about more substantial debate on political issues here.

The disappointment began early enough - barely six months after the Marine Parade by-election in fact, as a series of shenanigans came to light in rapid succession.
There was the misuse of university funds to send his wife's thesis overseas. There was the 'hunger strike' during which he drank water with glucose. There was the ouster of Mr Chiam from the SDP that led rapidly to the party's decline.

From three SDP MPs in Parliament after the 1991 polls, there was none by the next election.
Chee seemed to focus his energies not on getting his party into Parliament but himself into the spotlight.

At an election walkabout at a Jurong hawker centre in 2001, he heckled then-PM Goh loudly and persistently, right in front of the dozens of people having their Sunday breakfast. It was my misfortune to have witnessed the incident with my own eyes.
In 2004, another rude heckling incident, this time at a Washington think-tank which had invited Mr Goh to give a talk.

Last year, there was Chee's performance at the International Bar Association conference at Suntec City, when he used a question and answer session on the rule of law to criticise Singapore's judiciary and focus attention on his own political misfortunes.

The attempt to play to an international audience for his own gain did not go down well with Singaporeans.

Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim, a speaker at the symposium, distanced herself from him when she said Singaporeans are quite capable of deciding for themselves the kind of country they want and did not need foreigners to 'canvass our agenda for us'.

'Singapore is not perfect, and we don't pretend that it is. But neither should we make it out to be worse than it really is,' she said, in what seemed a rebuke to Chee.

This Monday, it seemed to be Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's turn to distance himself from Chee.
Acting as Chee's counsel for a contempt of court hearing, the 82-year-old seemed to be making a disclaimer when he said that while he had a duty to present the best case for his client, 'the counsel doesn't have to agree with whatever has been done by the client'.
When two prominent opposition figures have problems accepting Chee's behaviour, what more the average Singaporean?

Not that I think Chee will care about this. He marches, at least in his own mind, to a different beat. 'My Christian faith guides me, and it is a faith that compels me to fight for justice and to treat my fellow men and women with compassion,' he said in court last week.

Back in 1993, he also cited his Christian faith when talking about his 10-day hunger strike: 'I am a Christian. I came into this hunger strike under the Lord's guidance and am leaving it the same way. My life is not mine to take.'

The question though is whether mainstream Christians will accept his pattern of behaviour as being particularly Christian.

He claims to fight for justice but the way he fights has been lamentable.

Irresponsible, reckless, impulsive, unethical are all words that describe Chee's behaviour. Interestingly, they are also all words associated with what American psychologists call antisocial personality disorder, which manifests itself in a disregard for truth and for social norms.
According to a medical website, one complication that might arise from this disorder is frequent imprisonment for unlawful behaviour.

We don't know if indeed Chee suffers from this disorder. If he does, we have got to feel sorry for him. If he doesn't - well, all I can say is, Chee has squandered his potential.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Challenging decisions made by the Authorities? Are you kidding Mr Michael Hwang?

I was reading Molly Meek's Human Rights are Not Human Rights, Are Not Right
when I came across
A-G cautions against human rights becoming a 'religion' with fanatics
by Chong Chee Kin of Straits Times of 31 May 2008.

I was delighted to read in that article that
"The president of the Law Society, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, said lawyers have to be 'alive' to the legal avenues they can use to challenge decisions by the authorities.

Despite the fact that it's one of the first courses lawyers take, the practice of public law has slipped, said Mr Hwang.

He blamed public ignorance and the reluctance of clients to challenge authorities like statutory boards, Government agencies and tribunals.
Lawyer Raymond Chan, the former president of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, agreed, adding that Singapore's public law is not as developed as other legal sectors, like criminal law.

In the latest issue of the Law Gazette, the society's official magazine, Mr Hwang said there were several areas where citizens could question decisions made by authorities. The list includes rulings from licensing centres and statutory boards.

'In an age where commercial activities are increasingly becoming regulated by statutory authorities, it is important for lawyers to be able to advise whether (they) are exercising the regulatory powers (properly),' he said."

I sincerely hope Mr Hwang can help me out here.

If you have read my heartache at
you may understand my frustration with CPF.

I am angry and I feel so helpless that with each legislative change (they never stop), my money is no longer my money anymore. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of not having the freedom to use my hard-earned savings.

I had a heart attack.
My heart went haywire.
The scope showed I was flatlined.
I was defibrillated.
I survived.

I have CPF Medisave.
It's over $30,000.
I can use it for outpatient treatment.
It must not exceed $300 per annum.
For each bill, I must pay a deductible of $30.
I must pay a co-payment of 15% of the balance.

What's left of the bill after I paid cash for deductible & co-payment
Is the amount that I can claim and use my Medisave to pay.
Oh, I must also pay an Admin Fee of $3+ to use this facility of claiming my Medisave.

Here's the frustration and the madness of it all:

It 's my salary, my money.
They legislated that I must put some into CPF.
They legislated again that part of it must go to Medisave.
They legislated again and again to increase the amount in Medisave.

If it's my money, why do I have to pay an administrative fee to use it?

Ok, banks throw you a service charge, why not CPF?

God, please. People use banks' services out of their own choice. They can choose not to. Medisave was forced upon me by the people I could not or did not vote for.

Bottom line: Why must I pay a fee to use my saving to stay healthy and prevent another heart attack?

Mr Hwang, is there a basis to challenge the authority on this?

If there is, will you help me?

Thank you.


Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Is Catherine Lim Starting a Fire?

I was reading Catherine Lim's blog of her outrage at Wong Kan Seng/Mas Selamat already jalan sham?e when I chanced upon the comment by Chin Hwa to Catherine's blog below:
  1. Chin Hwa
    4 June 2008 at 13:50

    This is not a time to nitpick and blow up matters out of proportion.

    Singaporeans enjoy more than 45 years of plenty under the rule of the PAP. Today, instead of crushing under the weight of the heavy global oil and food prices like many, many larger and resource-rich countries, this tiny resourceless and no-economies-of-scale little red dot continues to give out goodies to its people - Progress Package, Growth Dividends, Inflation Bonus, etc., to the envy of many countries. Thanks to the good management of Singapore.

    No one wishes to unconsciously stir up the ground from any thread. Look what’s happening around the world today. It’s volatile like kerosene and can spread out of hand. It that what we want? Street protests as advocated can turn to anarchy where looting and violence is the norm. Tourists for example will be too scared to come here then. What then will happen to the livelihood of the thousands of our taxi drivers, hotel people, food & beverage people, etc.,? Moreover, investments thrive on a peaceful, safe & secure environment. It may then not be easy to turn back the clock. Playing hero or Robin Hood is. See what’s happening time & again in Thailand.

    Don’t play with FIRE. There’s no starvation, no food riots, no NEP, no torture and what-not that plagues others in Singapore. In the 80-20, it’s bad to play up the 20. No one will benefit in the end, save our rivals and enemies. Don’t bring back the Lim Yew Hocks (one who sold Pedra Branca [Christmas Island]), Ling How Dongs, Cheos, etc. Don’t rock the boat.

    If we didn’t know. The faces in government come and go after they have made their contributions. They are people like you and me. They are not entrenched in stone; only the party’s name. Leadership faces self-renewal and self-regulation. The only founding member remaining is our grand old MM. No one will deny that he deserves the seat for as long as he can still contribute to the well-being of the nation. Contributing, beyond self and family, he is. It must be hard for a loving husband to leave his beloved sick old wife to go to Russia to seek out business for Singapore. Bother to give that a thought? Altruism? Need he?

    Look at the bigger picture, Singaporeans. Be grateful. And finally, there’s no utopia and paradise on this dog-eat-dog planet.

This is my response to Chin Hwa.

Do we have to live in a planet where dog eats dog? Do people have to behave like rats just because a rat race has been created in Singapore. Does $$$ becomes the be-all and end-all with PAP Ministers setting the examples by paying themselves obscene salaries?

Chin Hwa, you may not be "crushing" but there are other Singaporeans who can hardly make ends meet with the current inflation and 7% Special, aka the GST.

There are Singaporeans who wish neither to be rodent nor canine but human beings with freedom to write, speak and gather without Big Brother breathing down their necks with legislations that stifle.

I'm so sick and tired of the self-glorification of "Singaporeans enjoy more than 45 years of plenty under the rule of the PAP". It's the same sad story and it's been told ad nauseam by PAP leaders and their cronies. Yes, the story of fishing village to 1st world is getting a little stale. To some, a little fishing village without FT's today may be a COZY SINGAPORE with HAPPY SINGAPOREANS instead of so many unhappy Kiasu, Kiasi and Konceited rats!

With basic necessity like 3 meals and a roof in the air over the head for most, we should then be perpetually grateful to PAP? And not be upset with:
  1. The GST Increase to help the Poor but could have ended up in the pockets of
  2. The Million $,$$$,$$$ Dollars Ministers
  3. The Scandalous Court Cases of Defamations Involving Politicians
  4. The NKF Scandal
  5. The Poor Getting Poorer with GST & Inflation
  6. The Rich Getting Richer with Instantaneous Law of NO More Estate Duty
  7. The CPF ( You can't touch this!)
  8. The HDB and its Subsidy
  9. GIC & Temasek throwing money everywhere except Singapore's Poor
  10. and Mas Selamat Jalan & Wang Kan Seng mystery among others.
Christmas Island has gone Down Under and now Middle Rocks has gone to our neighbour up north. Who wins? Who loses? It depends which angle you are looking at.

How are we to know that we may even have it better without Lee Kuan Yew and PAP? Yes, we may have our so-called $300 billions(?) in reserves which we citizens cannot even smell but we also have the 10 issues (listed above) up there.

One may be satisfied and satiated by the "good life" in Singapore, but let's not be too conceited and "complacent". Let's get off our high horses and not run down our friends in Thailand as in"See what’s happening time & again in Thailand." My skin crawls every time Singaporeans especially political leaders look down and talk down other countries when they play the "Singaporeans, you don't know how lucky you are with LKY and PAP?" comparison game.

I often wonder if LKY and PAP did not exist, would our lives be different? Yeah, we could be Malaysians instead of Singaporeans.
  1. We can have much greenery and climb Gunong Tahan and Mount Kinabalu instead of fighting the crowd at Bukit Timah Hill and MacRitchie Reservoir on Sunday mornings.
  2. We can own big houses with garden with what we are paying through our noses now for a little HDB subsidised apartment in the air.
  3. We do not need to waste time at the Causeway (due to Wong Kan Seng not Mas Selamat) to visit friends and relatives.
  4. We earned higher interest with EPF (where you really get it all back at 55) instead of CPF (where legislations changes so often that they always keep your hard earned savings until you are 85 (if you live long enough!). What with Medisave, Medishield, Minimum Sum, Retirement Account, Longevity Annuity and what have you?.
  5. We get cheaper petrol and cheaper goods without GST(?)
  6. Even with their Bumiputra law, we still have jailbird like Lim Guan Eng ending up as Chief Minister of Penang. We also have another jailbird charged with sodomy previously but now having the unofficial post of an Opposition Leader.
  7. We can have human rights demonstration like Hindraf and Royal Commission on lawyers, judges and political leaders who mess around with their power.
  8. We may have less foreign talents who take away jobs from our seniors
  9. We have a different and shorter (much... much... shorter) form of National Service and no Reservist's misery.
  10. Pay less than a dollar to see a doctor . . . And What Else?
Who knows?

It's a sad day in Singapore when comments by political commentators and concerned citizens like Dr Catherine Lim are viewed as a pain or, even worse, unpatriotic.

Yes, we come, we go. We live, we die.

In between a little rain must fall. Even to the the rich and the mighty.

What is important to you may not be important to me. Likewise, what's important to Catherine and others like me may not be important to you. Let's respect each other and not suppress the views of those that disagree with us and knock those less fortunate than us, especially our Thai friends (or our neighbours) while blowing our own trumpets.

Yes, one left his sick and beloved wife to go to Russia. The other left his 3 young children and long suffering and beloved wife to camp in Queenstown Prison for another 12 days. Each with his own business, passion, goals and objectives? Who knows? And we are to respect and be gratefu for what they do? For the future benefit Singapore? Despot, senile and cut a pitiable sight? A cheat, a liar and near psychopath? To each, his own! Altruism? Until we know, we'll never know!

I do not think Catherine blew things out of proportion.

FIRE? No, we don't play play with it :)


Monday, June 2, 2008

Who's Truth Is It Anyway?

For so many years, we read mainstream media like Straits Times, Today, New Paper. We watch Channel News Asia, Channel 5, Channel 8 and what have you.

After so many years, I'm happy to note that alternative reports and news are now available on the net. Now we have blogs like and hilarious MollyMeek at among others, which I strongly recommend you to read.

Lately, what brings meaning to me and other concerned Singaporeans are the truths in Belinda Ang's Court in the Battle Royal between Chees and Lees.

As much as Chee Soon Juan has been labeled a "near psychopath", it's interesting to note that his webbie is now mirrored at due to high volume of visitors.

There are many versions to what happened at Belinda Ang's court with regards to the testimonies of Lees. As I did not have the opportunity to be at the court to see and hear for myself, I am glad that those who witnessed the case are willing to state their observation and testify in their blogs as to what actually happened.

One good example is Martyn See's

Is it time for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The time may be near or is it already here?

Let's see what happens next.