Why your children will suffer if you vote PAP

pap_7_3_1_0

I usually veer off away from political conversations but each time I see PAP Ministers taking the low road of using ad hominem (personal attacks) on the oppositions, which is a fallacy and adds no value to the argument, it makes you wonder if they understand the proper way of making an argument. It’s like the more they try so hard to attack the opposition, they uglier it reflects on the PAP themselves and backfires on themselves.

Remember when someone asks us to repent and ended up swinging the votes the other way? This is exactly what I am talking about; these ad hominem are exactly why I won’t vote for the PAP because it reflects on their lack of character. People like Desmond Lee and Calvin Cheng who uses personal attacks on the opposition party while lacking in character themselves (for example, Calvin Cheng was involved in illegal price fixing and saying it’s no big deal.) really makes me wonder what kind of low quality shit are the PAP taking in nowadays. Any tom, dick, or harry, as long as they are willing to suck the balls?

But you know why they dare to speak like that without fearing repercussions? I tell you why. Because PAP has the overwhelming majority seats in parliament and dominates the Singapore political scene. Even if their teammate talks like an idiot, uses ad hominem (personal attacks) or any shitty methods of bringing down the opposition, as long as they are in their team, the PAP people will more than likely to be supportive of their teammates. My question is, my good people, are you willing to let these bad people do what they do and get away with it and let evil prevail?

The reason for me writing this is because ordinary citizens like me cannot tolerate such actions anymore. The ad hominem attacks coming out from these PAP people, taking the low road in arguments is encouraging me to speak up. So I shall speak up and tell everybody why enough is enough, and why PAP has turned evil.

I’m going to give it to you guys straight because I love my country and I see PAP is driving the country down the drains.

1) PAP is running the country like a company except the country is not a company. Who does Singapore make its money from? The people living here of course. So a greed driven strategy will do what? Results now has shown it increases the costs of living, with the price of most things shooting up, driving people into poverty and hardships. Salary has stayed stagnant and I see more and more Singaporeans “selling tissues”. My concern isn’t that you are currently doing average… My concern is that I can calculate based on these trajectory of prices increases that one day you may be kicked out of your job and you will end up in poverty. Don’t tell me those uncles/aunties pushing cardboards could ever predict they would be in such bad circumstances. It has happened to them and it could happen to you.

2) Results have shown that PAP don’t keep their promises. I normally don’t worry about this but now I do; why? Because PAP is pointing fingers at opposition saying they change their mind like flip flops! If you want to say others, make sure you are not like that lah! Since PAP don’t keep their promises, they can say anything they want and it’s worthless. Therefore, based on the track record we see now, we see PAP Ministers doing personal attacks on opposition parties and don’t keep their promises so I don’t see why our country should be run by such people.

3) Do you know why PAP are not transparent about the CPF and the HDB are not transparent about how much profit they make from us citizens? Because they don’t dare and they don’t have to, since the majority of parliament seats are dominated by them! They don’t need to be accountable, like when they make billions of losses in investments of the taxpayers money. Let me tell you something, if we continue to let them get away with such things, then don’t be surprised if one day you realize there is not enough money in CPF for payouts when opposition parties finally take over and come clean on the state of things. This is not a joke, this is serious. You can see it in the way they make excuses and increase the age in which you can withdraw your CPF. It stinks of something fishy but like I said, they don’t need to be accountable nor transparent as long as they hold the majority seats in parliament.

4) Don’t tell me the cost of a HDB is a few hundred thousand dollars and they are making losses. If a apartment or landed house in Malaysia much less than $100,000 then are they using different concrete than us? Or maybe our materials used in the construction are so different? If you want to profit from the citizens hard earned money, just say so. Don’t claim you guys are making losses, that’s an obvious technical lie. I said technical lie because accounting can be very creative, you might make lots of profits but you can show them into losses on paper. I am damn sure as hell if the costs of materials are pretty much the same, then an apartment should not be so expensive. My good citizens, tell me, do you want your future generations to pay for your mistake by keeping silent on such matters? In fact, you already are paying for your parents mistakes of keeping the PAP in power and abusing their political domination into earning as much money as possible from the citizens. If they don’t make money from you, as a country, where else can they make money from? They already said we don’t have natural resources, so the next best way to make profits is by earning them from you and me.

5) I don’t have anything against the foreigners and I think it’s cool to have people from different countries come here to stay. As with most things, we need a balance. Having floods because our drainage system cannot cope, having constant MRT breakdowns because our transport infrastructure cannot cope, having skyrocketing costs in everyday items and rocketing property prices because of supply and demand, that’s not balance. We people love humility and when people make some mistakes, it would be nice to see them apologize and corrected. Yet our PAP Ministers instead of focusing on their job at solving these huge problems for the residents of Singapore, these PAP Ministers focus on personal attacks on the integrity of opposition parties. That’s just a waste of our money paying their millions of dollars in salary.

There are a lot more but I am tired and not motivated enough to carry on writing. My question is, my good fellow human beings, do you want to stay silent and let the dominating party PAP get away with all their bad actions and continue their personal attacks on others without merit? Do you want your next generation to suffer from their strategy of running the country like a company and squeezing as much money as possible from your children? Are you so focus on paying your everyday expenses that you’ve lost sight of how things are going to get worse for your children because PAP cares about profits more than they care about you? Their million dollar salaries are the highest in the world and those money are the taxpayers money. The silence of the good people may be all that is necessary for the bad to continue doing their evil deeds. I rest my case.

Disgusted Parent

Article was first posted on TRS.

Advertisements

Top Videos of 2014: Of CPF-begging, void deck-wrecking and human tetris-forming

Here, we take you through back in the year to see the interesting events that happened in 2014, in and outside Singapore.

No. 20: Student scolds teacher in class and demands apology:

No. 19: Reading event in protest of NLB’s ban of 3 children’s books:

No. 18: STB’s promotion video, that got sniped at by netizens for its glaring old-fashion-ness:

No. 17: 7 restaurants & 15 liquor shops have closed down after restriction of liquor sale in Little India:

No. 16: 26,000 take part in largest Pink Dot gathering since, despite protests from some groups:

No. 15: Arrogant Ex-Crossinvest Banker Anton Casey calls Singaporeans a ‘wuss’

No. 14: PM Lee and Opposition leader Low cross swords in Parliament:

No. 13: Workers’ Party’s National Day video 2014:

No. 12: PM Lee: We gave up dialects because we emphasised bilingual education:

No. 11: HK’s Umbrella Revolution: Pro-democractic protesters use umbrellas to shield against pepper spray

No. 10: Putin pits shawl over President Xi’s wife Peng Liyuan at APEC meeting, in what is seen as a flirtatious move:

No. 9: Xi receives Abe with awkward handshake at APEC:

No. 8: Knife-wielding man chops children in China:

No. 7: 76-year-old lady beg MP Hri Kumar to help her get back her CPF:

No. 6: Christian lady destroys Chinese prayer altars at void deck funeral:

No. 5: Human Tetris caused by congestion in front of MRT escalator:

No. 4: Sim Lim Square stall operators force customer to pick up $1,000-refund in coins from the floor

No. 3: What really happened at Hong Lim Park: No ‘heckling’ by Roy and Hui Hui

No. 2: Emma Watson’s speech at the UN for a movement for gender equality:

No. 1: Appearance of Lee Kuan Yew at NDP 2014 despite talk that he may not be attending; he looked discernibly more frail though:

See also: Chinese version

Mr Foo was dishonest, not Dr Chee: KJ to WSJ

jackyfoo1The following is an open letter from Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam to the Wall Street Journal last week in response to Singapore’s Consulate-General in Hong Kong, Mr Jacky Foo’s, ‘predictable’ response to Dr Chee Soon Juan’s Op-Ed for the paper, “A New Vision for Singapore”, dated 27 November 2014.

csj-speech3.jpg_0

Dear Sir,

Mr Foo says Mr Chee is not interested in facts and accuses him of being dishonest. It is Mr Foo who is not interested in facts and is dishonest. He tries to pull the wool over your readers’ eyes by pretending that Singapore is a democracy and that elections are free and fair. It is ironic that he writes from Hong Kong where the students well understand that holding elections has nothing to do with democracy. Free and fair elections require a number of conditions including a free media, an independent Elections Commission, the Government not using state resources to bribe or intimidate voters nor being able to harass and bar political opponents through defamation suits or fake charges. Mr Chee may not have won an election but he has been prevented from standing since 2001 after being made a bankrupt. My father, J B Jeyaretnam, won election to Parliament in 1981 but was deprived of his seat in 1986 after what the UK Privy Council described as “a grievous miscarriage of justice.” Again in 2001 just before an election JBJ was removed from Parliament and prevented from standing before he passed away in 2008, this time after being bankrupted by defamation suits.

Mr Foo claims that inequality has increased in all countries, not just Singapore. However he dishonestly fails to point out that Singapore’s income inequality after taxes and transfers is the highest in the OECD, and significantly higher than in the US. Education is not free and not compulsory after primary. Special needs children are often excluded because the Government does not fund enough places for them. Singaporeans also have to pay for medical care not only out of their own savings but out of their relatives’ savings before they qualify for assistance. There is about $60 billion sitting unused in Singaporeans’ CPF Medisave accounts because of the stringent restrictions on how it can be used.

As for being able to purchase a two-room flat if you earn $1,000 a month this may be a theoretical possibility but this relies on the wage earner never falling ill or becoming unemployed. It is grossly irresponsible of the Government to push people who cannot afford it to buy a flat and reminiscent of the worst excesses of the sub-prime crisis in the US. This arises because the Government has so many conflicts of interest as the owner of the land, property developer, house builder and financier. As a result it has a vested interest in stoking asset price inflation. Mr Foo is proud that the Government claims to have created an average of $200,000 of housing equity per household (which may include many more working adults than a typical Western household) in the bottom 20% of the income distribution. However this could easily vanish and become negative if the housing bubble was to burst.

People at this income level in most countries in the OECD would get free or heavily subsidised rental housing in any case. This is what the Government should be doing not pushing low-income families to take on financial commitments that they are unlikel  In any case owning an HDB is not true home ownership. It is merely a 99 -year leasehold at the end of which the apartment reverts to the Government as freeholder. “Owners” can be forced to move any time the Government sees a profitable redevelopment opportunity.

As for Mr Foo’s claims that the bottom 20% of households have seen a 10% rise in real incomes over the last decade, this statistic is based on real income per household member. This is misleading as there are a number of reasons, such as a falling number of non-working dependents per household, why this could rise without there being a rise in real wages per working member. Also more household members could be forced to work or there may be an increase in working hours without any rise or even a decline in real wages per hour In addition the Government’s consumer price index uses a way of calculating housing costs grossly understates their rise.

Mr Foo says that GLCs only account for 10% of the economy. He bases this on a 2001 study that uses figures dating back to 1998. This pegged the share of GLCs at 13% Even if we accept that this is correct, deducting the share of foreign companies at 42% would still mean that GLCs controlled nearly 22% of the domestic economy. The Government also owns 80% of the land. While SMEs may make up the rest of the domestic economy most of them will be dependent in one way or another on either sales to GLCs or services provided by GLCs. The Government runs a surplus of at least $30 billion a year, which is close to 10% of GDP.

While Dr Chee is along the right lines he cedes too much of the economic argument to the PAP. Our GDP per capita may be slightly ahead of the US but it is only about half that of Norway or Luxembourg. A more appropriate comparison is GDP per hour worked or productivity. On this measure Singapore, whose workers work much longer hours than the US and Europe, does not do so well. Its GDP per hour worked is only about 60% of the US level. Our impressive economic growth rate has been fuelled by imports of cheap labour and not by productivity gains. In fact productivity has not grown at all since 2007. The Soviet Union’s growth rate was similarly impressive in the 1950s and 1960s.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

The writer is the secretary-general of the Reform Party and maintains a blog at http://sonofadud.com/.

Local TV and movies ‘promoting’ ‘ah beng’ culture to keep Sinkies docile and stupid

I refer to: Singapore Gangster Vs Egypt ‘s “Mr Kebab”https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=757052274348090

Not surprised this is happening in SG, this kind of gangsterism. Our local dramas, I am realising, from Ch 8 ones like I Not Stupid, Lion Men etc. to Ch 5 ones like Phua Chu Kang and Police and Thief, etc. are all “promoting” a kind of “gangsterism”, or glorifying a sort of “ah beng” mentality.

It is a ‘beng’ mentality that PAP thinks is good to keep the populace stupid, not thinking, and basically lacking in full intellectual civility, and hence more prone to not question the barbaric state of affairs and the status quo. Not to mention, our “grandfather” himself was the ultimate “gangster” of the Lion City.

While American movies often portray heroes as those with special, supernatural powers, far from the everyday domain, for SG’s melo-dramas, it’s more about the “Beng” mentality, to make people question themselves: “do I want to be an obedient citizen, or do I want to be a beng?” when that dichotic situation just does not exists. I can be the most rebellious, outspoken critic of the government and the status quo, and yet a studious, law-abiding, even nerdy member of society.

The “beng” dichotomy works to:

1) label rebels in the same light as ‘beng’ to brandish a ‘gangster’/ ‘bad person’ connotation to any sort of dissent.

2) to let most citizens want to not disobey or question the govt, as they dont want to be ‘beng’/troublemaker.

3) result in people who dislike certain things they see becoming ‘beng’ and ‘fight’ with other members of society in a way to show their ‘rebellious’ nature and ‘make a stand’.

All of which are ugly, disgusting and less-than-normal assumptions that are portrayed as the truth in such explicitly-propagandistic dramas.

Sgc Ommoner

Some interesting suggestions for ‘funny’ SMRT announcements

train, announcements

Now that SMRT is contributing to the massive efforts to make Singapore appear to be a fun place without actually being fun by playing live music and encouraging unusual announcements (that will be safe to make as long as train breakdowns are not linked in any way to inept governance), it’s time to constructively suggest more creative announcements:

1. Thank you for boarding the train—even though you could have chosen not to, like the 200 people doing their best impersonations of Grumpy Cat outside.

2. You might be wondering why the doors are not closing even though the train has loaded 120% of its passenger capacity. I’m afraid only the driver of the next train would know. You may be pleased to know that we are getting really close to him though.

3. If you see any suspicious-looking person or article, please call 999 but don’t inform the driver. There isn’t any. This is a driverless line, remember? And I’m just a pre-recorded voice.

4. I am sorry if the train is seems to be moving more slowly these days. But cheaper, better, faster come as a package. And are your fares getting any cheaper?

5. Passengers who have been listening to my announcements may be wondering why my command of English is better than any Channel 5 actor’s. Well, don’t worry. My company did not pay $26, 000 for my English course even though my CEO is once from the military.

Molly Meek

Vote them in: these alternatives have visions and policies for Singapore

VOTE THEM IN

By TRS

Singapore’s opposition parties have over the past few years come out with credible policies which can better the lives of Singaporeans.

On Sunday, prime minister Lee Hsien Loong said: “Only the PAP is solving problems and planning for the future. Only the PAP is putting forth a vision for Singapore.

“No other party does it better than the PAP!”

He also derided the opposition by saying: “The Opposition does not see any duty to bring people together, solve problems and plan for the future.

“Every time we put out a popular policy, they say ‘Do More’”.”

However, Mr Lee’s criticism of the opposition might only make him look petty, and this would only entrench the common perception that he is trying to “fix” the opposition.

A close observation of the opposition would see that they have been conscientiously devising credible policies which are in line with the wants of Singaporeans.

Singaporeans First (SingFirst) has said that it plans to provide free education from primary school to university, and also implement an old-age pension in addition to CPF and unemployment insurance.

This would provide Singaporeans with a strong safety net to protect the young, the old and the unemployed.

The PAP has made no such promise.

Moreover, the PAP on Sunday said that it has changed its values to wanting to uphold a fair and just society, but so far, it is “no action, talk only”, to quote Mr Lee’s own words.

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has gone a step further and over the past two years introduced several policy papers to make public housing more affordable and to reduce the salaries of the ministers.

SDP has calculated that it would be possible to bring down public housing prices to be below $250,000 for new buyers, if the government takes back the control of transactions.

On the flipside, it is the PAP that has continued to be ineffective and has made broken promises about making public housing cheaper. National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said that he would reduce the prices of Build-to-Order (BTO) flat to less four times the annual salaries of Singaporeans. However, the actual  amount is still far higher.

On the Central Provident Fund, the National Solidarity Party (NSP) has this year also conducted a focus group and proposed solutions to enhance it even before the PAP did.

The Worker’s Party (WP) has also, since it expanded its representation in parliament, has been able to ask some hard-hitting questions, which has exposed the low healthcare expenditure that the government is spending for Singaporeans, among others. In its place, Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam has also proposed alternative healthcare policies to increase healthcare spending to benefit Singaporeans which the PAP has however rejected.

Even as Mr Lee said, “Only the PAP is bringing different groups together,” his talking down of the opposition has by itself created divide.

Indeed, this was astutely observed by the Secretary-General of SingFirst Tan Jee Say who told Channel NewsAsia: “SingFirst sees the next GE (general election) as a last chance for Singaporeans to assert ourselves, our interests and well being in the face of PAP’s relentless attempt to dilute the core of native Singaporeans by converting huge numbers of foreigners to citizenship.

“Yes the next GE is deadly serious for true blue Singaporeans.”

Chairman of the Singapore People’s Party and Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam also said that the next GE is “also a serious wake up call for its own government, to fix its many wrong policies right, for affected Singaporeans”.

The other political parties present themselves as formidable opponents to the PAP and it is obvious that the PAP sees them as threats, with Mr Lee bellowing against them so blatantly.

Indeed, the next GE is seen by many observers as a make a break situation for Singapore, which also explains why the PAP is now kept on its toes – it knows that it has postponed the much needed changes for Singapore and is finally worried that its delay in resolving the issues in Singapore is now going to cost it votes.

Even in the likely situation that this might happen, Singaporeans can take heart that the other parties have already armed themselves with analysis to improve the lives of Singaporeans when they take over.

Malaysian court awards former ISA detainees RM4.55m for wrongful detention

Five former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees today won damages totalling RM4.55 million (S$1.71 million), including interests as an appellate court found that their detention was unlawful as they had been detained for their political beliefs.

A three-man Court of Appeal bench chaired by Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail, who partially allowed the government’s appeal to reduce damages, said the grounds of detention were frivolous and devoid of merit.

“The five were not a threat to national security,” said Abdul Wahab.

The five are Batu MP Tian Chua, Hulu Kelang assemblyman Saari Sungib, PKR supreme council member Dr Badrul Amin Baharom, and activists Hishammudin Rais and Badaruddin Ismail.

They were held without trial between 41 and 51 days in 2001.

Lawyer Razlan Hadri Zulkifli, who appeared for the five together with Ranjit Singh and Ho Kok Yew, told The Malaysian Insider that the quantum was reduced but still amounted to RM10,000 in damages for every day they were illegally held.

They were also awarded RM30,000 in exemplary damages and another RM100,000 for defamation.

“But this is exclusive of the 8% interest awarded by the court to be paid from the day the suits were filed until the judgment sum is realised,” he said, adding that the final amount could be in the region of RM4 million.

In October 2001, the then-High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan who awarded the five RM4.06 million in damages had also said their detention, under the now repealed ISA, was unlawful.

The award then was RM15,000 a day in relation to the total number of days that the five plaintiffs were detained.

Lau also awarded Tian Chua, Hishammudin, Saari, Badrulamin and Badaruddin RM60,000 in general damages and RM40,000 in aggravated damages on the grounds that words uttered by former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Norian Mai during a press conference in April 2001 in relation to their detention were defamatory.

The court also awarded RM200,000 as costs.

Lau highlighted in her ruling that the detention was more likely due to political consideration than the fact that they were possible threats to national security.

The five had sued Norian and two others for unlawful detention under the ISA and for defamation.

*Article first appeared on http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/court-awards-ex-isa-…

TRS Editor’s Note:

​Meanwhile in Singapore, despite claiming to be much more advanced than Malaysia, we still lag far behind in aspects such as this.

Singapore also has many former ISA detainees but far from being recognised as being falsely imprisoned and being compensated, as Malaysia is now doing, the former ISA detainees in Singapore continue to be outcast.

During the time that Lee Kuan Yew was in power, he threw many of his political opponents in jail claiming that they were “communist insurgents” despite no hard evidence to indicate that they had violent tendencies.

Dozens of Lee’s Political opponents as well as union leaders and activists were arrested in pre-dawn raids and thrown into jail. This was all done to cripple the opposition and ensure that the PAP could stay in power.

To this day, most of the detainees have never been proven guilty before a court of law and some remain exiled and forbidden to return to Singapore.

While Malaysia is paying compensation to wrongfully detailed persons, Singapore continues to silence their side of the story as seen in the recent banning of To Singapore, With Love.

It seems that PAP is not ready to face their ugly past and while economically Singapore may be better than Malaysia, this type of issue shows just how far behind we are in other areas.

In fact, Singapore still has the ISA which gives the government broad power to detain people without trial on the grounds that they are a threat to security. Malaysia has already repealed their ISA.