The real ‘Hitler’ was in Singapore

pap-attack-trump

My fellow Singaporeans, I don’t think we should view racism in Singapore less seriously than we view racism in America.

At least America – even under Trump – does not have the following:

-exclusion of Muslims in key positions in the military
-mass import of Chinese and Indians to ‘keep the racial balance’
-forced integration of racial communities
-discouraging those who earn less (usually Malays) not to have more than one children (LKY)
-practice of Eugenics (ask Google)
-female medical student quota

And, most important of all:
-no protests at all, meaning the protests that are happening around America now will not take place at all because even a gathering of one single person (reduced from 5, in 2011), is considered illegal.
-no independent free press to check and counter the government.
-non-sepration of powers as Executive, Legislative, and some say Judiciary, are the same powers.

Before we go ra-ra about guiding Trump ‘on what is right’, like some Bertha Henson does, let’s look at our own backyard.

We are a country that does not even:
-allow chewing gums
-allow homosexual lifestyle scenes on national TV
-allow any independent, free-of-govt-control TV or radio station
-allow TOC or TRE to be free from gazetting and attack
-allow alternative reading of history
-mention certain ‘sensitive’ historical events in textbooks
-dialects on TV and radio

We do not even know:
-how much exactly do we have in our reserves
-how much we lost through GIC and Temasek
-how much our ministers and politicians earn (real amount) and have

We also have no control over:
-the drawing of electoral boundaries
-the enactment of laws
-the content of school curriculum
-all major decisions and policies
-our own CPF money

Until today, uncompensated and unrecognised victims of the PAP regime include:
-Operation Coldstore detainees
-Operation Spectrum detainees
-Chia Thye Poh (longest political prisoner in the world)
-JBJ
Chee Soon Juan
-Roy Ngerng
-Amos Yee (youngest political prisoner in the world)

Will Trump do even one-tenth of the above?

Albert Tay

Parents chastise PAP ministers for saying one thing and doing another

zuo wen

A number of parents, whose children failed to make it into St Hilda Primary’s Higher Chinese programme in Pri 2, have written in to Mothership.sg and The Straits Times, to lament about their fate, after scoring 97 marks for a Pri 1 Chinese continual assessment exam did not help them qualify for the course.

The school’s head of department for Chinese Language, has explained that this was due to the fact that those students did not make it to the top 25% in terms of academic achievement in their cohort.

Results first, interest second

While Chinese/ Higher Chinese should have been a subject that any able student can take up based on his/her ability, as per MTL reforms some years ago, where Higher Chinese and Chinese B (a lower-ability course) eligibilities have been relaxed, it seems that schools, while exercising autonomy given by the MOE, choose – understandably – to still put overall academic achievement first, sometimes disregarding a child’s capabilities in individual subjects.

While MOE can brag about relaxing and reforming the system to focus less on results, the sentiment on the ground, in the workplace, and as a result, in the schools, are still stuck in a results-based paradigm.

The restriction on HIgher Chinese is particularly peculiar because with the rise of China, PAP ministers have been urging Singaporeans to learn more Chinese and use more Mandarin.

Parents criticise what they see as lip service

“My child is interested in Chinese, that’s why I was disappointed that despite her doing well, she was not selected to study Higher Chinese,” she said. “(The Education Ministry) urging young people to follow their interests and aspirations just sounds hollow,” said a mother who felt the school did not do her child’s interest any service.

A father felt such practices contradict what our PAP Ministers and MPs have been saying about not ‘chasing the last mark.’

“The ministers had been talking about how we need to move away from differentiating students more finely than necessary,” he said.

“Changes are being made to the PSLE so that pupils focus on their own learning and not on competing with their peers. Surely, such practices go against this thinking?”

Streaming and tuition raised again

The father also added that he felt streaming pupils in Primary 1 was “way too early” and it would be better for schools to allow all children to take up Higher Chinese from Pri 1, as is the practice in the 15 Special Assistance Plan (SAP) primary schools.

In all SAP primary schools, schools that promote Chinese language and culture, children take Higher Chinese from Pri 1. They decide whether to continue to Pri 6 at the end of Pri 4.

Another parent, worried for her child not being able to make it for the Higher Chinese course, said, “These are the kinds of practices that push parents to send their kids for high-end tuition that costs $1,000 a month.”

 

China is the one asking for an explanation from the Singapore government

terrex.jpg

It seems Singapore has breached customs declaration on sensitive equipment in HK, and has failed to give either explanation or promise of action.

Neither the Singapore government or army have responded well to the HK customs breach, or the 2012 promise of adherence to the one-China policy.

Below is a commentary aired on Phoenix TV, that gives light to why our 9 Terrex are still being held in HK, while America’s submarine vessel was returned within 3 days:

“So what happened to the case of Singapore’s detained armoured vehicles? Why aren’t the shipment returned after a month? This is because we have issued two questions and the Singapore government refuses to answer them, or, gave an unsatisfactory answer. This is what we asked:

First, you have to obey Hong Kong’s legislations and regulations. Why is a military-sensitive ship docking in Hong Kong without any declaration? This is a blatant infringement of the Hong Kong’s custom regulations and you have to give a response, and also a guarantee that this will not be repeated. Have Singapore responded? Not even once. This is only one matter.

The second matter, is that in 2009 and 2012, Singapore promised China to terminate “Operation Starlight” and military cooperation with the Taiwan army. Today is 2016, have you done so? Did you fulfill your promise? It is hence obvious that Singapore did not comply with the “One-China” policy, and we hope to get an appropriate response on this. However, Singapore has been giving us empty talks, they said “we respect the “One-China” policy, but we have been working with the Taiwan army for so long since the 1970s…

…Singapore should know how to assess current affairs in modern context. If they want the armoured vehicles returned, they have better responded to the 2 questions by China. Otherwise, they can forget about getting them back.”

forces2.jpg

Between 2009-2012, there had been a promise given by the Singapore side to stop training in Taiwan, in adherence to the one-China policy, but it is still ongoing till now.

Chinese-language video here:

Translation done by: States Times Review

Chinese Transcript captured by States Times Review:

“那麽新加坡裝甲車這件事又怎麽回事呢?爲什麽到現在都拿不走呢?已經將近一個月了。就是因爲我們提了兩個條件:新加坡的官方軍方一個都沒有回答。或者說我們開出來的題,他們給的不滿意。我們當時就提出來:

第一,你要遵守香港的法律法規。爲什麽這樣敏感的東西到了香港,怎麽不備案?不報官?這是違反香港的法律你得做出明確的解釋,甚至你得做出明確的保障。你做了嗎?還沒有。這是一件事。

另外一件事的話,你早在2009年2012年的時候,你就給我承諾放棄你所謂的“星光計劃”,放棄跟台軍的軍事合作,可是現在2016年,你放棄了嗎?你兌現了嗎?所以你沒有堅持 “一個中國” 的原則,希望你的官方給一個明確的答案。但是新加坡可説是淡而荒置莫而乎的在處理這個問題,他只是說:我們堅持“一個中國” 的原則,但是我們和臺灣軍方的合作這由來已久,上世紀70年來就開始了,所以他想模糊這段歷史。。。

。。。新加坡應該審時度勢,要想把這批裝甲車拿走,一定要給中國給出的兩個問題上給出明確的答案。否則的話,這些車是拿不走的。”

A good year to volunteer with WP, SDP

wp1.jpg

sdp1.jpg

Let’s start 2017 right by putting some of our good energy to work!

If you had not been doing something meaningful the past 10, 20, 40 years, it’s time to consider something like this.

No point crying over GE2015 ‘freak result’ spilt milk. It’s time to act.