Our Twitter account Singapore GE 2016 has been suspended. We can only assume that anti-government supporters did not like what we were saying and made a bogus report to Twitter. Far from seeing this as a set-back, the team is now even more motivated than ever. Afterall, if we weren't a threat, there would be no need to silence us.
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Saturday, 25 October 2014
The court case between the Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) is being used by the Worker's Party to highlighted the uneasy peace between the Town Councils (which are political entities) and the various government agencies tasked to enforce the established laws of the land.
Naturally, the opposition is claiming that the government agencies are being used by the People's Action Party (PAP) to fix them. What the opposition and their supporters do not realize is that, using the 2011 election results as the basis, almost half of the civil servants working in these agencies are also "anti-government." If this were the case, unless the opposition is now asserting that only pro-government citizens are employed as civil servants, then in reality there is no way that PAP can use government agencies to do their bidding without a scandal. Since we have not heard of any scandals, I believe that we can conclude the following about AHPETC in regards to the Trade Fair court case ....
NO LOGIC. How can AHPETC claim that they did not know they needed a permit to hold a trade fair? Every Town Council needs one. AHPETC knew they needed a permit and deliberately did not get one. If any Tom, Dick or Harry can hold a trade fair without a permit, there will be no control and anyone can hold fairs and collect money.
NO INTEGRITY. AHPETC is obviously desperate for the money. Auditors have pointed out a discrepancy of more than $20 million in their accounts. AHPETC thus calculated that it is better to break the law and collect the rental so as to keep the Town Council running.
NO SHAME. NEA offered AHPETC a composition fine of $1,000 to compound the offence. Instead, AHPETC wanted to politicize the case by going to court. In doing so, AHPETC is wasting tens of thousands of their residents’ S&C money for their own political agenda. So who is the victim here?
PAP is a Victim of their Own System
In the end, the PAP here is much a victim of the system as the AHPETC. It is reasonable to assume that the PAP knows that being seen as a "bully" is counter-productive to their re-election plans. As such, isn't it in the PAP's best interest not to fine the opposition in this case? Unfortunately, the law is the law, and the government agencies (headed and run by civil servants) tasked to enforce the law decided that there was an offence and proceeded to do their jobs.
If the PAP were corrupt as the opposition claims, the PAP would have stopped the NEA from taking actions and, in the process, deny the Worker's Party one more opportunity to portray them negatively.
In the AHPETC-NEA court case, it is the PAP that is being fixed by the Worker's Party.
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Increasingly, Singapore democracy advocates like Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui have been harping on the fact that there is no freedom of speech. Ironically, they fail to realize the fact that they are in fact enjoying freedom of speech. How else do you explain the fact that they are freely expressing anti-government rhetoric (many of which bothering on defamation) and yet they remain free to roam the streets like any other Singaporean?
PM Lee's Defamation Suit – Citizen vs Citizen
PM Lee's Defamation Suit – Citizen vs Citizen
The defamation suit against Roy Ngerng by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is not state-sanctioned, but a civil case initiated by one citizen against another. Unfortunately, Mr Lee happens to be the Prime Minister of Singapore and Roy Ngerng’s alleged defamation is related to Mr Lee’s actions in regards to his role in a state run organization. If Singapore is indeed the police state Roy Ngerng claims that we are, why is Roy Ngerng not in jail and free to travel the world to put Singapore down in front of the world and allowed to continue to defame Mr Lee?
Hong Lim Park Investigation – Citizen vs Citizen
As for the police’s investigation into Roy Ngerng’s and Han Hui Hui’s actions at Hong Lim Park on 27 Singapore 2014, one must note that this was only initiated after they intruded into (and disrupted) the performance area of another group of Singaporeans. Roy Ngnerg, Han Hui Hui and their band of supporters have been holding rallies after rallies at Hong Lim Park and no action was taken against them. So the investigation is not to suppress free speech, but question the manner in which it was done so as to protect the rights of all Singaporeans.
Essence of Free Speech and Democracy in Singapore
At the end of the day, free speech is not about just your own right to speak, but also about the rights of others to speak. What Singapore’s democracy’s advocates and their supporters seem to forget is the latter. To the anti-government segment of the population, anyone that holds a different view is against them and they are to be attacked. Name calling, online shaming are par for the course for anyone willing to speak up for the government.
At its essence, free speech and democracy is not only about allowing people to choose, but also about accepting and supporting the choice of the majority even if it goes against everything you believe in. By this standard, “democracy advocates” like Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui have not truly embraced the concept and spirit of democracy. In my view, they are not proponents of democracy. They are proponents of anarchy.
Posted by Bumiputra at 04:09
One-time political prisoner and now Executive Chairman of Banyan Tree Holdings, Mr Ho Kwon Ping spoke about the future of Singapore politics at the first Institute of Policy Studies (IPS)-Nathan Lecture. Mr Ho spoke on the expected "dramatic" changes in politics and governance in the coming half century and the following are five key points he raised ...
On what to expect in the second act of the Singapore story. "Because the foundations of economic growth and the pillars of political stability have already been laid, today's young generation can - and will - define and then set out to achieve its own definition of what a developed society means in terms of social justice, an egalitarian culture, political maturity, cultural creativity, and all the other markers of the truly exceptional nation which we can be...
"It becomes obvious, then, that it is in the domestic socio-cultural and political realms that change will be the most evident and the most dramatic in the next 50 years. These changes will also involve a process of continual self-invention, so that the Singapore narrative, while hopefully remaining vibrant and relevant in a constantly evolving world, may not necessarily resemble what it was before."
On the future of the People's Action Party (PAP). "The PAP will face a challenge to retain the same degree of control over Parliament as it has had in the past. So long as the very popular current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong remains in control - not only as Prime Minister but as Senior Minister or Minister Mentor like his predecessors, the mantle of legitimacy can perhaps be extended to younger leaders. But even Mr Lee will be in his 80s by three more elections. The challenge will be considerable from then onwards...
"Historical trends elsewhere point towards an election loss by the PAP in the second half of the next 50 years. Or to put it another way, it would be extraordinary if that did not happen."
On what might cause the PAP to lose an election. "There are three basic possibilities: first, an accidental or freak election. Second, a split within the PAP resulting in a loss to an opposition party which might not otherwise be stronger than an united PAP. And third, an anticipated, outright loss to an opposition party...
"Of these three possible causes for loss of power, which have the greatest likelihood of occurring? I would rate the first possibility - a freak election - as having the highest chance, followed by an internal split, and the least likely is an outright, widely predicted loss. But this is a quite arbitrary stab in the dark.
"In all likelihood, it is the interplay and combination of these three scenarios in different ways, which will pose a challenge for the PAP and its scenario-planners in future decades."
On how today's youths see government. "They regard the government and the PAP as a matter of fact - not a saviour, nor a tyrant, but somewhat like a parent who is respected but who must be grown out of. Clearly, a paternalistic political culture is not going to excite, much less retain, the loyalty of younger Singaporeans...
"What unites them all is the immediacy of self-agency; not waiting around for somebody else to do something you think is needed, but doing it yourself. This kind of political DIY or Do-It-Yourself attitude has in the past decade encouraged a participatory democracy which resembles Singapore's early years, but which then surrendered to decades of developmental authoritarianism."
His advice for young Singaporeans below 35. "If we do not accept, almost as a point of faith, that our economic progress must now be matched by a more holistic maturation in other spheres of life, and that this flowering of the Singapore garden is the central task of your generation, then we are fated to either decline through thoughtless hubris, or flounder in equally thoughtless self-doubts and anxieties."
Saturday, 4 October 2014
The saga over Media Development Authority Singapore’s (MDA) decision to classify Tan Pin Pin’s To Singapore with Love as Not Allowed for All Ratings (NAR) as it "undermine national security" continues.
Jim Sleeper, a lecturer in political science at Yale University, continues to criticize Singapore’s lack of respect for civil and political rights and called for Yale College (and by extension the United States) to pressure “stand up and pressure Singapore as a lone filmmaker cannot”. While Jim Sleeper may not have said it in as many words, Jim Sleeper is alluding to a US intervention in Singapore similar to that of past regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is however disappointing is that Singaporean Kenneth Jeyaretnam (of the Reform Party), agrees with Jim Sleeper that this should not be a debate for Singaporeans only, and that without outside assistance there will be little hope for change. Kenneth Jeyaretnam is essentially making a call for the United States to be involved in and assist in the overthrow of the People’s Action Party (PAP).
Coming from a well-known member of an opposition party, such calls can only be liken to how fifth elements working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assisted in regime changes in places like Iraq and Libya. While Singapore may have our faults, we are nowhere near the likes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Tunisia, and asking for a Foreign Government to topple our elected government is treasonous.
As Singaporeans, we need to be wary of the likes of Kenneth Jeyaretnam. While he claims to be building on his father’s legacy and wants democracy, his the ends justifies the means approach will destroy Singapore and our way of life. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Regime change has given them “freedom of speech”. But they worry on a daily basis about basic living necessities (like food and water) and they are constantly living in fear.